Section 271AAB(1)(a)

Section 271AAB(1)(a) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 271AAB(1)(a), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• PCIT v Sri Venkatesh Granites Pvt Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The s.271AAB penalty order never says which limb of the definition of undisclosed income is satisfied. Can the penalty survive?
  No. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's penalty order had nowhere specified whether the alleged undisclosed income satisfied the statutory parameters in the Explanation to s.271AAB, and cancelled the penalty for that reason alone. The Telangana High Court agreed and concurred that the penalty, whether at 30 per cent or at the 10 per cent the CIT (Appeals) had substituted, could not be sustained, and held that no question of law arose.
• Rashmi Jalan v ACIT ITATHelps taxpayer
  The 271AAB notice does not say which clause or what rate. Can the penalty survive?
  No. Section 271AAB contains clauses (a), (b) and (c) with different conditions and different rates, so an omnibus show-cause notice that names neither the clause nor the rate leaves the assessee unable to know the case to be met and denies a real opportunity under s.274. The Tribunal also held, independently, that the levy had no foundation where no statement was recorded under s.132(4) and the returned income was accepted under s.143(3) without any addition.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.