Pr Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur v. Nirmal Kumar Agarwal
[Citation -2017-LL-0706-14]

Citation 2017-LL-0706-14
Appellant Name Pr Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur
Respondent Name Nirmal Kumar Agarwal
Court HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 06/07/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags undisclosed income • payment of tax • penalty
Bot Summary: II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is perverse om so far as it has failed to appreciate the fact that the penalty was imposed for not fulfilling the condition as provided in section 271AAA as the assessee did not substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. The Tribunal while considering the matter on page 14 observed as under: ITA-155/2017 There is no dispute with regard to the proposition that penalty u/s 271AAA is not leviable if the assessee in the course of search in a statement under sub section of section 132 admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which the said income has been derived, substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income is derived and pays the tax together with interest in respect of the undisclosed income. The first requirement of immunity under Section 271AAA is that the assessee admits the undisclosed income in a statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and specifies the manner in which the income has been derived. We find that the assessee in response to question no.19 to the statement recorded under Section 132(4) has admitted the undisclosed income and stated that the income derived from the business of financing the brokerage. Second requirement is to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. The Id. CIT has reported that the surrender made by the assessee was on account of undisclosed business of financing and brokerage. The third requirement is of law that the assessee pays tax along with interest on the undisclosed income.


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 155/2017 Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur-II, Jaipur Appellant Versus Shri Nirmal Kumar Agarwal, 304, 3rd Floor, Ridhi Sidhi Apartment, Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur for Mr. R.B. Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 06/07/2017 1. By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed appeal of Department confirming order of CIT (A). 2. counsel for appellant has framed following substantial questions of law: I) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, ITAT has erred in deleting penalty imposed u/s. 271AAA amounting to Rs.18107047/-. II) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, ITAT is perverse om so far as it has failed to appreciate fact that penalty was imposed for not fulfilling condition as provided in section 271AAA (2) (ii) as assessee did not substantiate manner in which undisclosed income was derived. 3. However, Tribunal while considering matter on page 14 observed as under: (2 of 2) [ITA-155/2017] There is no dispute with regard to proposition that penalty u/s 271AAA is not leviable if assessee in course of search in statement under sub section (4) of section 132 admits undisclosed income and specifies manner in which said income has been derived, substantiated manner in which undisclosed income is derived and pays tax together with interest in respect of undisclosed income. first requirement of immunity under Section 271AAA is that assessee admits undisclosed income in statement recorded u/s 132(4) of Act and specifies manner in which income has been derived. We find that assessee in response to question no.19 to statement recorded under Section 132(4) has admitted undisclosed income and stated that income derived from business of financing brokerage. Therefore, first condition is satisfied. Second requirement is to substantiate manner in which undisclosed income was derived. Id. CIT (A) has reported that surrender made by assessee was on account of undisclosed business of financing and brokerage. Therefore, this observation of Id. CIT (A) is not disputed by revenue. Therefore, second requirement is also met by statement of assessee. third requirement is of law that assessee pays tax along with interest on undisclosed income. revenue has not disputed payment of tax and interest thereon. Therefore, in view of above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere in ordeer of Id. CIT (A), same is hereby upheld. ground of revenue is dismissed. 4. In view of non-fulfilment of third condition where penal clause is there, interpretation put forth by Tribunal is just and proper. No interference is called for. 5. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal and appeal stands dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. //bm gandhi 32 Pr Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur v. Nirmal Kumar Agarwal
Report Error