2009 (4) TMI 939 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed for penalty under IT Act 1961. Upheld penalty for undisclosed income.

Ahujasons Shawlwale (P) Ltd. Versus DCIT

The appeal challenging the penalty imposed under section 158-BFA (2) of the IT Act, 1961 was dismissed. The assessing officer determined undisclosed ... - Issues Involved:1. Imposition of penalty u/s 158-BFA (2) of the IT Act, 1961.2. Determination of undisclosed income for the block period.3. Validity of penalty proceedings and satisfaction of conditions for penalty imposition.Summary:1. Imposition of Penalty u/s 158-BFA (2) of the IT Act, 1961:The primary issue in this appeal is the imposition of penalty u/s 158-BFA (2) of the IT Act, 1961. The search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the IT Act was conducted on the assessee's business premises, leading to the discovery of discrepancies in stock and unaccounted transactions. The assessing officer determined an undisclosed income of Rs. 43,85,705/- and initiated penalty proceedings. The assessee argued that the penalty was not applicable as the conditions for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars were not met. However, the assessing officer concluded that the provisions of section 158-BFA (2) did not require such conditions and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,26,126/-.2. Determination of Undisclosed Income for the Block Period:The assessee filed a return showing nil undisclosed income for the block period. However, the assessing officer found discrepancies in stock and unaccounted purchases, leading to additions totaling Rs. 43,85,705/-. The assessee did not appeal against these additions, which included excess cash found, trading additions, and unaccounted purchases. The appellate authorities upheld the assessing officer's determination, emphasizing that the undisclosed income had attained finality and the penalty was automatic under section 158-BFA (2).3. Validity of Penalty Proceedings and Satisfaction of Conditions for Penalty Imposition:The assessee contended that the initial satisfaction for penalty imposition was not recorded, citing the decision in CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises. However, the appellate authorities noted that the provisions of section 158-BFA (2) differed from section 271(1)(c) and did not require such satisfaction. The penalty was deemed automatic for undisclosed income determined in excess of the amount shown in the return. The assessee's failure to disclose the true income and the acceptance of the assessing officer's determination without appeal led to the conclusion that the penalty was rightly imposed.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the penalty u/s 158-BFA (2) of Rs. 30,26,126/- was upheld. The order was pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2009.