DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), Chennai V. SUNIL RAVINDRANATH, Chennai

MA 84/CHNY/2020

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which had deleted a penalty imposed on Shri Sunil Ravindranath under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original penalty was levied following a search operation under section 132 of the Act. The Revenue contended that the case should be covered under section 153C due to the nature of the search, while the assessee's counsel argued that the search was directly conducted at the assessee's residence, making section 271AAB applicable. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and relevant sections of the Income Tax Act, upheld the deletion of the penalty, emphasizing the specific provisions of section 271AAB which exclude the application of section 271(1)(c) in cases where the search falls within the specified previous year.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135268 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 132; 271(1)(c); 271(1)(b); 153A; 153C

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी वी दुगाŊ राव Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member M.P. No.84/Chny/2020 [In I.T.A. No.1476/Chny/2019] Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), 46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Vs. Shri Sunil Ravindranath, B-127, Sunny Vale Apartment, No. 351, Konnur High Road, Aynavaram, Chennai 600 023. [PAN:AFWPR0388D] (Petitioner) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) Petitioner by : Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CA सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 10.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The Revenue has filed the present Miscellaneous Petition against the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1476/Chny/2019 dated 20.11.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2016-17. The ld. DR relied on the petition and submitted that in the instant case, the search was initiated in the case of Shri V.R. Venkatachalam & M/s. Sri Ramachandra University Trust and was not initiated in the case of the assessee. It was further submission that the residence of the assessee was only searched as part of the main search proceedings in the case of Shri V.R. M.P. No.84/Chny/20 2 Venkatachalam & M/s. Sri Ramachandra University Trust and therefore, the assessee’s case was covered under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] but not under section 153A of the Act. Thus, there is mistake apparent in the order passed by the Tribunal and pleaded for recalling of the order and re-adjudication of the case on merits by affording an opportunity of being heard to the Revenue. 2. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that search under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the residence of the assessee and the search was initiated within the period referred in sub-section (1) of section 271AAB of the Act. Therefore, it falls within the specified previous year as provided in Explanation (b) to sub-section (3) of section 2711B of the Act and moreover, sub-section (2) of section 271AAB of the Act specifically excludes the application of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was further submission that there was no mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. We have heard both the sides, perused the order passed by the Tribunal dated 20.11.2019 and find that the Tribunal has adjudicated the issue of levy of penalty with regard to applicability of section 271AAB of the Act or section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. M.P. No.84/Chny/20 3 Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 13.03.2018 since the undisclosed income of the assessee came into light as a result of search under section 132 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer failed to note that the search was initiated within the period referred in sub-section (1) of section 271AAB of the Act, which falls within the specified previous year as provided in Explanation (b) to sub-section (3) of section 2711B of the Act. Moreover, sub-section (2) of section 271AAB of the Act specifically excludes the application of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was rightly opined that the penalty has to be levied only under section 271AAB of the Act and not under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, we find no mistake apparent in the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the petition filed by the Department is dismissed. 7. In the result, the MP filed by the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced on 15 th March, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (G. MANJUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 15.03.2023 Vm/- M.P. No.84/Chny/20 4 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 6. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.