DCIT Vs Tanya Jaiswal (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Income Tax Act not imposable as AO failed to link additional income disclosed by the assessee with the incriminating material found during search. Thus, penalty u/s. 271AAB deleted.
Facts- In penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act, the AO observed that it was found from the seized material and records that assessee had purchased property below the fair market value of the property and the value determined by the Valuation Officer at Rs.30,95,200/- which was taken as a fair market value. The difference of the value of Rs.2,27,000/- (Rs.30,95,200/- minus Rs.28,68,000/-) was made as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act. Further, he observed that assessee has taken bogus LTCG to the tune of Rs.4,65,00,798/- which was declared in the ITR by the assessee. The assessee had also disclosed cash transaction of Rs.57,00,000/-, Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.7,50,000/- in her ITR.
AO observed that this disclosure of additional income i.e. bogus LTCG and cash transactions in ITR was consequent to search action u/s 132 of the Act. Had the search was not taken place the assessee would not have declared the income. Accordingly, he proceeded to impose the penalty at Rs.30% of the undisclosed income at Rs.24,53,100/- u/s 271AAB of the Act.
