LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/k-krishnamurthy-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-tax-20250213/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

K. Krishnamurthy vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
13 February 2025
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 2025
Result
Disposed
Bench
J.B. Pardiwala, Manmohan
Citation
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 557 : 2025 INSC 208
Acts & Sections
Income Tax Act, 1961
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 2 S.C.R. 557 : 2025 INSC 208
Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to imposition of penalty u/s.271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on undisclosed income in the specified previous year.
Headnote

Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.271AAA – Penalty where search has been initiated – ‘Undisclosed Income’ – ‘Specified previous year’ – ‘Found in the course of search’ – Search and seizure operation carried out at the appellant’s premises and the appellant disclosed an income of certain amount – Order imposing penalty u/s.271AAA passed against the appellant for AY 2011- 2012 – Another order passed in respect of AY 2010-2011 imposing penalty at the rate of 10% on the entire returned income – Tribunal allowed the application against the Penalty Order in respect of AY 2010- 2011 accepting the appellant’s case that 2009-10 cannot be the ‘specified previous year’ for the purpose of s.271AAA, however the application against the Penalty Order in respect of AY 2011-2012 rejected – Thereafter, the appellant’s appeal rejected by the appellate tribunal as also by the High Court – Correctness: Held: By virtue of explanation b(ii), AY 2011-12-year in which the search was conducted, is the specified previous year for the purpose of s. 271AAA(1) – Appellant admitted Rs.2,27,65,580/- as income for AY 2011-12 during the search as well as substantiated the manner in which the said undisclosed income was derived and paid tax together with interest thereon, albeit belatedly – Thus, all the conditions mentioned in s.271AAA(2) satisfied and penalty u/s.271AAA(1) not attracted on the said amount – Furthermore, expression ‘found in the course of search’ is of a wide amplitude – It does not mean documents found in the assessee’s premises alone during the search – At times, search of assessee leads to a search of another individual and/or further investigation/interrogation of third parties – All these steps and recoveries would fall within the expression ‘found in the course of search’ – Appellant offered Rs.2,49,90,000/- under the head income from other sources on account of these land transactions during the course of assessment proceedings only and not at any time during the search – Since income of Rs.2,49,90,000/- constitutes undisclosed income found during the search-copies of sale deeds collected from the society, penalty u/s.271AAA(1) leviable on the said amount – Also, as the said amount was not admitted in the declaration before the DDIT during the course of search but was disclosed by the appellant only during the assessment proceedings, and that too, after the Assessing Officer had asked for copies of the sale deeds from the Society – Exception carved out in s.271AAA(2) not attracted to the said portion of the income – Appellant to pay penalty at the rate of 10% on Rs.2,49,90,000/- and not on the entire returned income. [Paras 30-43]

Read the full headnote (3 more paragraphs)

Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.271AAA explanation (a) – Expression ‘Undisclosed Income’ – Meaning of:

Held: s. 271AAA is a penalty provision, it has to be strictly construed – Fact that the assessee has surrendered some undisclosed income during the course of search or that the surrender is emerging out of the statements recorded during the course of search is not sufficient to fasten the levy of penalty – Onus is on the Assessing Officer to satisfy the condition precedent stipulated in the said Explanation, before the charge for levy of penalty is fastened on the assessee – Thus, obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to demonstrate and prove that undisclosed income of the specified previous year was found during the course of search or as a result of the search. [Paras 34, 35]

Income Tax Act, 1961 – s. 271AAA explanation (b) – Expression ‘specified previous year’ – Meaning of. [Para 36] Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.271AAA – Interpretation of – Explained. [Paras 29-36]

Keywords: Imposition of penalty · Undisclosed income · Specified previous year · Penalty where search has been initiated · Search and seizure operation · Penalty Order · Assessment order · Copies of sale deeds collected from the society · Causation for collecting the sale deeds from the Society · Expression ‘found in the course of search’ · Investigation/interrogation · Penalty provision · Strict construction

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

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 o
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →