Case Law Details
Gauri Shankar Kandoi Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)
Given that the assessee is a salaried person who is not required to maintain any books of accounts and there is no mechanism to report the investment in the tax return, the said investment cannot be held as undisclosed investment and more so, undisclosed income so defined in section 271AAB of the Act. In light of the same, the investment of Rs. 17,16,594/- so found in purchase of Villa at Suncity Township at Sikar Road, Jaipur cannot be termed as undisclosed income within the meaning of “undisclosed income” as so defined u/s 271 AAB of the Act and penalty levied thereon is liable to be set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur dated 06.03.2018 for A.Y 2013-14 wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal.
“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 2,61,660/- under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 2,61,660/-imposed under section 271AAB. ”
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
