VidhiSangh

Supreme Court of India · 12/02/2025

K. KRISHNAMURTHY versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 557 · 2025 INSC 208

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

Construing Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Supreme Court held that penalty for undisclosed income found in a search is discretionary, that the Assessing Officer must prove the income is 'undisclosed income' found in the course of the search, and that the immunity in sub-section (2) is available even where tax and interest are paid late. It confined the 10% penalty to the income first disclosed during assessment, not the amount the assessee admitted during the search, and not the entire assessed income.

Issues

  1. Whether penalty under Section 271AAA(1) is mandatory, and on whom the burden lies to show that the income is 'undisclosed income' of the specified previous year.
  2. Whether the immunity under Section 271AAA(2) is lost where the assessee admits the undisclosed income during the search but pays the tax and interest on it belatedly, no period for payment being prescribed.
  3. Whether income arising from sale deeds collected from a third party after the search is undisclosed income 'found in the course of a search'.
  4. On what amount the 10% penalty was leviable in this case.

Provisions considered

Held

Result

Appeal disposed of; the appellant directed to pay penalty at 10% on Rs.2,49,90,000 only, instead of on the entire assessed income of Rs.4,78,02,616.

Judgment PDF: Supreme Court of India, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 557.