Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay u/s 132(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The part of the extraction of the statement is as follows:

r
FAN
Name of the assessee
Address of the essessoe
Assessment Year
3.
4.
5. Status
6. Amount of Penalty
7. Oate ofOrdet
8. DIN

VIJAY
105 3rd Panaiyur , Chonna’
Tamil Nadu , ‘Mila
2016.17
Individual
Rs, 15000000 3010612022
231104369935g 1
Search and seizure eratio 32 of
30.09.2015. During the cou of sear ceeding
were seized. After thati thi se w alized
Order under section 271 B(l) okthe Income Tax Act, 1961

assessee filed his return o come As declaring the total i me of
2. During
Setvakumar a ri. cover were seized as AN he received Rs.5 Crores 1 as
e IT act was conducted on rtain incriminating materials is circle. Subsequentjy, the ear 2016-17 on 29.07.2016
of ” li” film Shri P. T. rei certain excel sheets . T assessee admitted that ation from M/S SKT Studios.

pa
On the day of search, a swom statement was recorded from Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay u/s 132(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The part of the extraction of the statement is as follows:
“Q.No.10. During the course of search action conducted in the premises of SKT Studios, the producers of the film “Puli’, incriminating materials were found cleady showing that cash porüon of Rs. 4.93 crores was paid to you over and above the cheque payment of P.s. 16 crores (including TDS). Explain as to why the said cash portion was not aeeounted-irryour books of account.
Ans: I admit that I Rs- 5 Crores of cash as remuneration over and above the cheque portion of Rs. 16 crores. I received this cash over a period of one year time. I wifl admit Rs. 5 crores as my addjtjonal income for the financial year 2015-i6 on account of the cash portion of the remuneration received by me for the

film “Puli” and pay the taxes on it, o
6 Q.No. 14 Please state as to how much of unaccounted income has been eemed by you in the past six years and give the detailed break up Of it’
Ans. Sir, As I have alteady mentioned, have received only R9, 5 crores in cash as my unaccounted income from the profession for tho film “Puff”. I have not nceived cash for any mother movies, However, in order to cooperate with the department in an amicable manner, I admit an additional income Of 10 crores (Ten crores) for the current financial year 2015-16, This is in addition to Rs 5 crores (Five cc-ores) as already admitted by me on account o/cash remuneratipn received for the film “Puli”. In total, I have admitted Rs. 15 crores (Fifteen.crores) as my unaccounted income for the current financial year 2015-16. I assure to pay the tax on the additional income of Rs. 15 crores admitted by me today during the course of search action.
3. The assessee in his return of-income.r the A. Y. 2016-17 admitted a total income of Rs.35t42,91 ,89ö/- in I g æu*sed income admitted of a sum of
Rs.15 Crores as discussed – ove, archl ssessment was completed on 30.12.2017 making following ition
i) Disallowance of reciati med the Assets to the tune of
ii) Disallow* o d by Ws. SKT
Studios h
iii) Disallowa o ou. ngto
4. Against the assessm rder dated 30.1220h7, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The assessment in the assessee»s case has reached finality as the Hon’ble ITAT has pa$sed order vide order-dated 22.12.2021 •in ITA No.3367/Chny/2018.
5, The fact that the assessee had Indeed suppressed his was gathered only during the course of search. It is also a fact that the assessee has fumished the retum of income only consequent to search. But for the search, the

assessee would not have admitted this income as the same was received in cash mode and not subjected to TDS whereas 16 of remuneraton which was received through banking channels were subjected to TDS. Thus it is evident that there existed not only MENS REA but also ACTUS REA ie receipt of his part remuneration in cash so as to evade tax. ‘In Other words, this case contained alt the’ ingredients required for initiation Of penalty u/s 271AAB, Accordingly, Penalty
of

under section 271AAn of l, were, initiated and notice was issued
The •Authotised of the vide his reply letter dated 04.042019 has Stated that pursuant to the search conducted ws 132 Of the Income
Tax Act in the premises of the above completed on 31.12,2017, “In the said order, it is stated that penalty proceedings 1271AAB be initiåted geparately and a notice under section 274 read with section 271(1 )(c) of the income only issued along with the assessment order. Later as on 11.122018 another notice under Section 274 read With section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act was given.•
7. Further, It is pertinent to mentionÄhai thöAssessm@öt Ofdéfdated3(V.12202Twas set aside uls 263 dated 28.10.2019 by the pr. CIT with a direction to issue penalty notice u/s 271AAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order us 263 was challenged by the assessee before the Hon’ble ITAT and vide order dated 13.052022, the Hon’ble ITAT quashed the order
Assessing Oficer has alr% iniii63 of n.lpcome proceedings Tax Act, 1961 271AAB and held of thatthe Income Tax Act, 1961.
8. Subsequentlyy as matter eached! natity, hearing notice dated 24&.2022 was issued in c ction ding p. ty proceedings. In response, assessee filed his reply • e leder- daed*8 22, rein the assessee’s main contention as expired on
30-06.2018 income of u ct ‘1961”.
9. The Autiori epr as n considered and not acceptable for reasons a. follows. Initially, assessee has challenged the validity of revisionary order u/s 263 by PCIT direcing the AO to issue notice u/s 271AAB before Hon’ble ITAT, during which the latter upheld validity of notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAB on 11.12.2018. However, now the assessee has challenged the time limit for passing the order uls 271AAB. Hence, it is clear that the assessee is changing his stand according to his whims and fancy and so the same is unworthy to be considered for this discussion.
10. As the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB was under dispute and by order dated 13.05.2022 of the Hon’ble ITAT the matter has reached finality, the assessee’s contention that the time limit for passing order uts 271AAB has expired is baseless.
11. The undisclosed income admitted by the assessee to tie b•ne of Rs. 15 Cr. has been disclosed by the assessee only due to the fact that the evidences in this regard were gathered during the course Of search. But for the search, this
of

undisclosed income would not have been disclosed by the asgessee. The asse33et. vide question no. 14, in his sworn 9tatement dated 30.092015, has admitted that said undisclosed income based upon the seized documents only and also failed to

fumish any details with respect to the undisclosed income,
12. The additional undisclosed income fo the tune of 15 Cr. admitted by the assessee on this account is, therefore, not voluntary and clearly due to the findings gathered during the course of search proceedings, As gtated earlier, but for the search, the assessee would not have disclosed his true and correct income.
13. In nut shell, mens rea and actus rea on part of the assessee to evade taxes has been established we!! beyond doubt in this cage .in the disotJ$g10D above-and thus undoubtedly this case qualifies to be a fit casa for levy of penalty as envisaged under Section 271AAB(1)(a) of the l. T. Act.
The penalty to be levied is computed as under: