Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2008 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (8) TMI 385 - ITAT BOMBAY-EBlock Assessment in search case - Levy of penalty u/s 158BFA(2) - assessment u/s 158BC - whether the penalty is not legally tenable as the expenses were not covered in the definition of undisclosed income prior to the amendment of undisclosed income in section 158B(b) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2002, retrospective from July 1, 1995? - difference of opinion between the Members - Third Member order. Ld AM order - HELD THAT:- He noted that regular assessment procedure and block assessment procedure are different since Chapter-XIV-B is a special procedure for assessment of search cases. Ld A.M. held that the assessee, under Chapter XIV-B, has been given a chance to file the return and come clean. Under section 158BFA(2), penalty is leviable only on that portion of the undisclosed income determined by the AO, over and above the amount disclosed by the assessee in the return. The learned AM, further held that section 158BFA(2) is materially different from section 271(1)(c), and u/s 271(1)(c), the element of concealment is necessarily to be present for invoking the section 271(1)(c); not so for invoking section 158BFA(2), though discretionary power is given to AO under the said section to levy or not to levy the penalty. Since the assessee was not able to give explanation regarding the cash credit or the interest paid on account of diversion of loan, the AO rightly levied the penalty and the CIT(A) confirmed it. Ld JM order - HELD THAT:- Mere reference of assessee's name in the statement u/s 132(4) is not sufficient to invoke the proceedings u/s 158BD. There was no reference made of any material found in the course of search, on the basis of which the undisclosed income could be determined. Since the additions were made not on the basis of any seized material but on the basis of the statement, only because it was not challenged by the assessee before the higher forum, the learned JM held that the penalty levied is liable to be quashed. The learned JM held that the section as it stands now and stood then is materially different and has no scope for levying the penalty. Third Member order - That the view taken by the learned JM is correct. First of all, a discretion is given to the AO to levy or not to levy the penalty as the wording in section 158BFA(2) reads "The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay....". On this point there is no dispute between the Members. The reasoning of the learned AM that mere failure on the part of the assessee or the explanation given by the assessee was not satisfactory to the Officer and that itself is sufficient to levy the penalty, particularly on the basis of facts in the instant case; I am afraid is difficult to accept. As rightly noted by the learned JM, at the time when the assessee filed the return on 31-5-2001, the section as it stood then was materially different from, as it exists now. Section 158B(b), which defines "undisclosed income", was subjected to change by insertion of the words "or any expense, deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false" with retrospective effect from 1-7-1995 by the Finance Act, 2002, after the wordings "for the purposes of this Act". The learned JM rightly noted that "The words 'underlined by us' were included by Finance Act, 2002 which shows than at the time when the return was filed, the disallowance of expenses was not within the ambit of the expression 'Undisclosed income'. So at the time of filing the return, assessee was not obliged to declare the same in its return particularly when no material or evidence was found relating to such expenses in the course of search carried out at the business premises of the group concerns. Further there is no material on record to prove expenditure claimed by the assessee was false. There is no such finding in the assessment order. The factum of falsity cannot be assumed or inferred but has to be proved on the basis of material or evidence. No adverse inference can be drawn merely because the appeal was not filed by the assessee". Therefore, I uphold the view taken by the learned JM. Hon'ble Third Member has concurred with the view of the Hon'ble JM that penalty u/s 158BFA(2) of the Act could not have been levied, since additions itself could not have been made legally. In accordance with the majority view, the penalty levied u/s 158BFA(2) of the Act is hereby deleted. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|