Additional Income cannot be treated as undisclosed merely for admission during search

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Ravi Kumar Khaitan (ITAT Kolkata)

Merely for the reason that the assessee had admitted additional income in the course of search for taxation, it cannot be said that such admitted income was undisclosed income within the meaning of ‘undisclosed income’ provided in Explanation to section 271AAA of the Act to impose the penalty. We concur with the Ld. CIT(A) that when the income disclosed u/s 132(4) in the course of search, itself cannot be treated as undisclosed income within the meaning or undisclosed income as provided in Explanation to 271AAA of the Act, the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income to impose the penalty under that section. As rightly noted by the Ld. CIT(A) that as apparent from the assessment order there is no finding of the AO that in the case of the assessee there was anything found in the course of search which was not recorded in the books of account.

Just because the assessee has admitted additional income in the course of search it cannot be said that such additional income was undisclosed income within the meaning of undisclosed income provided under explanation to section 271AAA of the Act to impose the penalty. We agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that when the income disclosed u/s. 132(4) of the Act in the course of search itself cannot be treated as undisclosed income within the meaning of undisclosed income as provided in explanation to 271AAA of the Act, the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income to impose the penalty under that section. We note that Rs. 4 lacs seized has been offered by the assessee in the disclosure petition to be taxed in the hands of M/s. Rahee Infratech Ltd. so, without the AO pointing out that the assessee had undisclosed income in the nature as given in explanation to section 271AAA of the Act, the penalty ought not to have been imposed and that has been rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A).