The officer never asked me how I earned the surrendered income. Can he still levy s.271AAA penalty because I did not substantiate the manner?
No. The Gujarat High Court held that the requirement in s.271AAA(2)(ii) to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived is consequential to, or a corollary of, the base requirement in clause (i) to specify that manner in the s.132(4) statement. The duty to substantiate begins only when the officer recording the statement elicits a response on the point. Where the Revenue failed to question the assessee at all about how the income was derived, it cannot jump to the later requirement, and when the base requirement itself fails the question of denying the immunity does not arise. The Tax Appeal was dismissed and the deletion of the penalty stood.
Decided by the High Court (Akil Kureshi J and Biren Vaishnav J) on 2017-07-24, reported as Tax Appeal No. 434 of 2017 (High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad). It bears on section 271AAA, section 271AAA(2), section 132, section 132(4), section 271(1)(c), section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Penalty and Search, Survey & Block Assessment matters.
Most s.271AAA penalties are defended on the ground that the assessee said nothing about how the money was earned. This case puts the burden back where it belongs: if the search party never asked the question, the assessee cannot be penalised for not answering it. The search statement itself, and what questions were actually put in it, is therefore the first document to obtain.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
A search under s.132 was carried out on 8 December 2009. The assessee disclosed Rs. 3,05,47,400 as undisclosed income during the search. He subsequently filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 3,11,74,590, admitted the disclosure made in his statement under s.132(4), and paid tax with interest. The Assessing Officer nevertheless imposed penalty of Rs. 30,54,750 under s.271AAA on the footing that the assessee had not substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the penalty, recording specifically that no question had been put to the assessee while recording the statement under s.132 regarding the manner of deriving the undisclosed income, and the Tribunal upheld that deletion. The Revenue appealed under s.260A, contending that s.271AAA(2) differs from Explanation 5 to s.271 and that the earlier decisions in CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah and CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel, rendered on different statutory provisions, would not automatically apply.
The Tax Appeal was dismissed. The additional condition in s.271AAA(2)(ii), that the assessee substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, is consequential to or a corollary of the base requirement in clause (i) that he specify that manner in his s.132(4) statement. The responsibility to substantiate commences only when the officer of the raiding party recording the statement elicits a response on the point. Where the Revenue failed to question the assessee about the manner of deriving the income, it cannot jump to the consequential requirement of substantiating it, and when the base requirement itself fails the question of denying the benefit of no penalty does not arise.
The Court set out s.271AAA(1), noting that it applies where the search under s.132 was initiated on or after 1 June 2007 but before 1 July 2012, and s.271AAA(2) with its three conditions. It accepted that sub-section (2) had introduced, over and above clause (ii) of Explanation 5 to s.271, the additional requirement of substantiating the manner, and did not reject the Revenue's contention totally. On the facts, however, it held that the field was still held by its own decision in CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah, because substantiation is logically dependent on a declaration having been made, and a declaration of the manner arises only if the recording officer asks for it. The CIT (Appeals) had found as a fact that no such question was put. The Court accordingly held that the Revenue could not rely on the failure to substantiate, and dismissed the appeal.
If, as in the present case, the Revenue failed to question the assessee while recording his statement under section 132 (4) of the Act as regards the manner of deriving such income, the Revenue cannot jump to the consequential or later requirement of substantiating the manner of deriving the income.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Gujarat High Court held that the requirement in s.271AAA(2)(ii) to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived is consequential to, or a corollary of, the base requirement in clause (i) to specify that manner in the s.132(4) statement. The duty to substantiate begins only when the officer recording the statement elicits a response on the point. Where the Revenue failed to question the assessee at all about how the income was derived, it cannot jump to the later requirement, and when the base requirement itself fails the question of denying the immunity does not arise. The Tax Appeal was dismissed and the deletion of the penalty stood. This was decided by the High Court (Akil Kureshi J and Biren Vaishnav J) and bears on section 271AAA, section 271AAA(2), section 132, section 132(4), section 271(1)(c), section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Tax Appeal No. 434 of 2017 (High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad). Most s.271AAA penalties are defended on the ground that the assessee said nothing about how the money was earned. This case puts the burden back where it belongs: if the search party never asked the question, the assessee cannot be penalised for not answering it. The search statement itself, and what questions were actually put in it, is therefore the first document to obtain. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Obtain the complete s.132(4) statement with all questions and answers, not just the surrender answer, and check whether any question was put about the manner of deriving the income.
A search under s.132 was carried out on 8 December 2009. The assessee disclosed Rs. 3,05,47,400 as undisclosed income during the search. He subsequently filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 3,11,74,590, admitted the disclosure made in his statement under s.132(4), and paid tax with interest. The Assessing Officer nevertheless imposed penalty of Rs. 30,54,750 under s.271AAA on the footing that the assessee had not substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the penalty, recording specifically that no question had been put to the assessee while recording the statement under s.132 regarding the manner of deriving the undisclosed income, and the Tribunal upheld that deletion. The Revenue appealed under s.260A, contending that s.271AAA(2) differs from Explanation 5 to s.271 and that the earlier decisions in CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah and CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel, rendered on different statutory provisions, would not automatically apply. The matter was decided on 2017-07-24 by the High Court (Akil Kureshi J and Biren Vaishnav J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The Tax Appeal was dismissed. The additional condition in s.271AAA(2)(ii), that the assessee substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, is consequential to or a corollary of the base requirement in clause (i) that he specify that manner in his s.132(4) statement. The responsibility to substantiate commences only when the officer of the raiding party recording the statement elicits a response on the point. Where the Revenue failed to question the assessee about the manner of deriving the income, it cannot jump to the consequential requirement of substantiating it, and when the base requirement itself fails the question of denying the benefit of no penalty does not arise.
The Court set out s.271AAA(1), noting that it applies where the search under s.132 was initiated on or after 1 June 2007 but before 1 July 2012, and s.271AAA(2) with its three conditions. It accepted that sub-section (2) had introduced, over and above clause (ii) of Explanation 5 to s.271, the additional requirement of substantiating the manner, and did not reject the Revenue's contention totally. On the facts, however, it held that the field was still held by its own decision in CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah, because substantiation is logically dependent on a declaration having been made, and a declaration of the manner arises only if the recording officer asks for it. The CIT (Appeals) had found as a fact that no such question was put. The Court accordingly held that the Revenue could not rely on the failure to substantiate, and dismissed the appeal. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "If, as in the present case, the Revenue failed to question the assessee while recording his statement under section 132 (4) of the Act as regards the manner of deriving such income, the Revenue cannot jump to the consequential or later requirement of substantiating the manner of deriving the income." The decision followed or applied Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahendra C. Shah - held to hold the field even in the context of s.271AAA(2); Commissioner of Income Tax v. Radha Kishan Goel (Allahabad High Court) - referred to in the same line of authority.
It was decided by the High Court on 2017-07-24 and is reported as Tax Appeal No. 434 of 2017 (High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 271AAA, section 271AAA(2), section 132, section 132(4), section 271(1)(c), section 260A, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The Tax Appeal was dismissed. The additional condition in s.271AAA(2)(ii), that the assessee substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, is consequential to or a corollary of the base requirement in clause (i) that he specify that manner in his s.132(4) statement. The responsibility to substantiate commences only when the officer of the raiding party recording the statement elicits a response on the point. Where the Revenue failed to question the assessee about the manner of deriving the income, it cannot jump to the consequential requirement of substantiating it, and when the base requirement itself fails the question of denying the benefit of no penalty does not arise. It arises in Penalty and Search, Survey & Block Assessment matters, on section 271AAA, section 271AAA(2), section 132, section 132(4), section 271(1)(c), section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Akil Kureshi J and Biren Vaishnav J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If no such question was put, say so in terms in your reply and rest on this line of authority; the Court treated that as decisive. If a question was put and you answered it, be ready to show what you said and any material supporting it - the immunity then turns on substantiation, and PCIT v Ritu Singal shows how thin an answer can be rejected. Check separately that tax with interest on the undisclosed income has been paid, which is the third condition in s.271AAA(2) and is independent of the first two.
Validity check could not be completed. No decision doubting or reversing this judgment was located, but no dedicated search of its subsequent history, including any SLP, was carried out. The provision it construes, s.271AAA, governs searches initiated under s.132 on or after 1 June 2007 but before 1 July 2012, as the judgment itself records at para 12; for later searches the corresponding provision is s.271AAB. Contrast PCIT v Ritu Singal (Delhi High Court, 12 March 2018), where a question had been put and the assessee's answer that the money was simply 'unaccounted income' was held not to substantiate the manner. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The Tax Appeal was dismissed. The additional condition in s.271AAA(2)(ii), that the assessee substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, is consequential to or a corollary of the base requirement in clause (i) that he specify that manner in his s.132(4) statement. The responsibility to substantiate commences only when the officer of the raiding party recording the statement elicits a response on the point. Where the Revenue failed to question the assessee about the manner of deriving the income, it cannot jump to the consequential requirement of substantiating it, and when the base requirement itself fails the question of denying the benefit of no penalty does not arise.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
Valuables were found at my premises and I say they are not mine. Who has to prove ownership?
Is penalty under s.271(1)(c) criminal, quasi-criminal or civil?
When must the satisfaction note be recorded before proceedings are taken against a third party?
You gave particulars, paid by cheque and got a confirmation. Has the burden shifted?