Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2005 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (8) TMI 289 - AT - Income TaxBlock Assessment in search case - penalty levied u/s 158BFA(2) - HELD THAT:- The charge against the assessee is to show the reason why a difference has taken place in the undisclosed income shown in the return and ultimately determined by the Assessing Officer. In order to appreciate this controversy we have to keep in mind that element of concealment of particulars of income or income is not condition precedent for levy of penalty u/s 158BFA(2) because income for the block period is to be determined on the basis of seized material which is already in the possession of the department. The assessec has to explain as to why it was not able to compute the true undisclosed income from the seized material and why it failed to return the true undisclosed income. In order to explain its position assessee has submitted that 84 files containing about 10,000 voluminous sheets were seized involving 31 concerns. It was not humanly possible for the assessee to work out the exact figure. The group has already honoured whatever discloser was made at the time of search. The assessee further did not dispute the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment, rather assessee itself filed the letter pointing out as to how it claimed the expenses which are not allowable and can be considered as undisclosed income for the block assessment purpose. In the present case particulars were already in the possession of the department. It is the computation of income which has not been properly disclosed by the assessee and the reasons demonstrated before us for not disclosing the true undisclosed income is that from the seized material it was not humanly possible to compute the income from such voluminous record. We have gone through the assessment order also. From the assessment order it is discernible that additions have been made purely on the basis of assessee's letter dated 24-4-2001 extracted above. The Assessing Officer nowhere discussed independent material for making the addition. No doubt there is a difference in undisclosed income declared by the assessee and ultimately determined by the Assessing Officer but for that assessee has already demonstrated that it was not humanly possible to compute the alleged true undisclosed income as determined by the Assessing Officer out of the voluminous seized material. This argument of the assessee has been rejected by ld. Assessing Officer without assigning any reason. From the record we nowhere find mala fide intentions attributable to the assessee, rather on going through the letter of the assessee dated 24-4-2001 coupled with the explanation submitted by it during the penalty proceedings we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty. Therefore, we do not see any good reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A). In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
|