SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 333

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
K. Krishnamurthy – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 2025 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 943 of 2023]
Decided On : 13-02-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Krishna Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N Venkatraman, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. H R Rao, Adv. Mr. Tejas Patel, Adv. Mr. Mohd Akhil, Adv. Ms. Priyadarshini Priya, Adv. Mr. S A Haseeb, Adv. Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Brijesh Yadav, Adv.

Compliance with all conditions under Section 271AAA(2) of the Income Tax Act is mandatory to avoid penalty for undisclosed income.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 271AAA(1) and 271AAA(2) - Penalty for undisclosed income - The court held that compliance with all three conditions under Section 271AAA(2) is mandatory for avoiding penalty. The appellant admitted undisclosed income during the search but failed to comply with the conditions for a portion of the income, leading to a penalty. (Paras 30, 34, 38, 42)

(B) Penalty - The imposition of penalty under Section 271AAA is not automatic; it requires the Assessing Officer to demonstrate undisclosed income was found during the search. (Paras 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
The appellant entered into an MOU for land procurement, disclosed significant income during a search, and faced penalties for undisclosed income. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the penalty imposed for AY 2011-2012.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant satisfied conditions for one portion of undisclosed income but not for another, leading to a partial penalty.

Issues: The main issues were whether compliance with all conditions under Section 271AAA(2) is mandatory and if the penalty can be reduced based on partial compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the imposition of penalty is not mandatory and must be based on the fulfillment of conditions under Section 271AAA(2).

Result: Appeal dismissed with a direction to pay penalty on a specified amount.

Table of Content
1. mou for land procurement (Para 3 , 4 , 6)
2. search and seizure operation (Para 5)
3. assessment order issued (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. arguments on behalf of appellant (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. arguments on behalf of respondent (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. interpretation of section 271aaa (Para 29)
7. penalty not mandatory (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
8. appeal dismissed (Para 43)

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 02nd August, 2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in I.T.A. No. 125 of 2017 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’).

FACTS

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’) dated 19th January, 2009 was entered into between Mr. Hashim Moosa on the one hand and the Appellant as well as Mr. Surendra Reddy on the other, for procuring lands at a certain price from the land procurers, i.e. the Appellant and Mr. Surendra Reddy. As per Clause 10 of this MOU, Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) was paid to the procurers for arranging facilitation of transfer of land from the landowners to Mr. Hashim Moosa/his nominees. No other payment, except a reimbursement under Clause 11, was contemplated under this MOU.

4. A transaction was entered into between Mr. Hashim Moosa and the Space Employees’ Co-operative Society Ltd. (in short ‘Society’) on 26th September, 2009. It was in order to facilitate purchase of land for this transaction that the MOU dated 19th January, 2009 was entered into by the Appellant with Mr. Hashim Moosa.

5. A search and seizure operation was carried out at the Appellant’s premises on 25th November, 2010 under Section 132 of the Act 1961. As recorded in paragraph 4 of the assessment order dated 15th March, 2013, the Appellant disclosed an income of Rs. 2,27,65,580/- (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Seven Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Only) as a consequence of the search and seizure.

6. A notice dated 21st August, 2012 under Section 142(1) of the Act 1961 was issued to the Appellant calling for return of income for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2011-2012. The Appellant filed his return of income on 05th November, 2012. The Appellant returned a total income of Rs. 4,77,11,330/- (Rupees Four Crores Seventy Seven Lakhs Eleven Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Only) for Previous Year (‘PY’) 2010-2011, relevant to AY 2011-2012. It is pertinent to mention that the due date for filing return of income for AY 2010-2011 expired on 31st July, 2010 in terms of Section 139(1) of the Act 1961.

7. The Respondent issued the Assessment Order dated 15th March, 2013 for PY 2010-2011 relevant to AY 2011-2012, in respect of the Appellant. The total income assessed was Rs. 4,78,02,616/- (Rupees Four Crores Seventy Eight Lakhs Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixteen Only). The relevant portion of the Assessment Order, which has attained finality, is reproduced herein-below:

    “4. Declaration before the DDIT (Inv) during search proceedings:

    4.1 Space Employees's Co-operative Housing Society Limited entered into an MOU on 26-09-2009 with Mr. Hashim Moosa for acquiring 120 acres (which was further extended to 150 acres) of lands in Hoskote Taluk for a consideration of Rs. 74,26,980/- per acre. The Society will pay Mr. Moosa Rs. 73,26,980/- per acre of registered land to and the balance Rs. 1 lakh per acre shall be deposited in a Joint Escrow Account till the entire extent of 120 acres of land is registered in favour of the Society.

    4.2. To procure lands for the Society, Mr. Hashim Moosa had entered into an MOU on 19-01-2009 with Mr. K. Krishna Murthy and P. Surendra Reddy for procuring lands @ Rs. 70,00,000/- per acre.

    4.3. Consequent to search action in your case, the assesse had admitted income for

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        Judicial Analysis

        AI

        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top