Rajendra Kumar Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)
The assessee, engaged in building construction and supply of building material, challenged the penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 imposed under Section 271AAB(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14. A search under Section 132 was conducted on 31.10.2012 at premises of the Motisons Group, including the assessee’s residence. In his statement under Section 132(4), the assessee surrendered income of Rs. 1,00,00,000. He subsequently filed his return on 16.10.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1,05,28,110, including the surrendered amount. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153B(1)(b) on 23.02.2015 at the returned income. On the same date, penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB were initiated, and a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 was subsequently imposed under Section 271AAB(1)(a). The CIT(A) confirmed the levy.
The assessee first challenged the validity of the penalty notice, contending that Section 271AAB contained different clauses carrying different penalty rates and that the notice did not specify the particular limb invoked. The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground, relying upon the principle recognised in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC), that a pure question of law could be raised before the Tribunal. ([TaxGuru][1])
