2010 (9) TMI 266 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty - no notice was issued during the course of the Block Assessment proceedings for initiation of penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act penalty proceedings were time barred - Held that - it is not mandatory in law that a notice regarding levy of penalty needs to be issued along with the assessment order - no substantial question of law arises in the present case - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to additions to income based on estimates and penalty levy for Block Assessment Period.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Block Assessment Period. The counsel for the appellant argued that additions to income on account of jewellery were based on estimates and, therefore, neither the additions nor the penalty could be levied. It was highlighted that the Assessing Officer was uncertain about the ownership of the jewellery, as additions were made in the hands of both the appellant and his wife. Additionally, it was contended that since no notice was issued during the Block Assessment proceedings for initiating penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act, the penalty proceedings were time-barred. Reference was made to the assessment order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for the Block Assessment Period.

The court observed that since the quantum proceedings had attained finality, the appellant could not challenge the additions to income or the issuance of the show cause notice for penalty levy under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act. It was noted from the record that the Joint Commissioner had completed the assessment and had separately initiated penalty proceedings under Section 158BFA of the Act. A show cause notice had been issued to the appellant-assessee regarding the imposition of a penalty. The court examined the relevant provisions of Section 158BFA of the Act concerning the levy of interest and penalty in certain cases. It was emphasized that the issuance of a notice regarding penalty levy did not need to be made along with the assessment order, citing precedents where the Supreme Court had held that the satisfaction of the authority regarding penalty levy was sufficient compliance with the statute, even if the notice was issued subsequently.

In conclusion, the court held that no substantial question of law arose in the case. Therefore, the appeal, lacking merit, was dismissed without any order as to costs.