Tribunal sets aside penalty under Income-tax Act due to retrospective amendment

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty under section 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the retrospective nature of the amendment. The Tribunal held that the amended definition of "undisclosed income" could not apply to the assessee's case as the return was filed before the relevant amendment. The orders of the lower authorities were reversed, and the penalty was deemed inapplicable to the present case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty under section 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Definition and scope of "undisclosed income" prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2002.
3. Validity of additions based on statements and retracted statements.
4. Applicability of retrospective amendments on penalties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Penalty under Section 158BFA(2):
The primary issue in this appeal is the legality of the penalty amounting to Rs. 17,33,821 levied under section 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the penalty was not legally tenable as the expenses were not covered in the definition of "undisclosed income" prior to the retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 2002, effective from July 1, 1995.

2. Definition and Scope of "Undisclosed Income":
The assessee argued that the definition of "undisclosed income" did not include expenses, deductions, or allowances found to be false at the time of filing the block return on June 7, 2000. The relevant amendment by the Finance Act, 2002, which included these items in the definition of "undisclosed income," was made with retrospective effect from July 1, 1995. The Tribunal noted that at the time of filing the return, the disallowance of expenses was not within the ambit of "undisclosed income."

3. Validity of Additions Based on Statements and Retracted Statements:
The additions were primarily based on the statement of the CEO of the assessee-company, which was later retracted. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer relied entirely on the CEO's statement without any corroborating incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal emphasized that the retraction of the statement was not given due consideration, and the Assessing Officer did not provide the assessee an opportunity to rebut the evidence.

4. Applicability of Retrospective Amendments on Penalties:
The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd., which held that retrospective amendments creating new liabilities should not entail punishment with retrospective effect. The Tribunal also cited the Calcutta High Court's decision in Emami Ltd. v. CIT, which held that interest and penalties could not be levied based on retrospective amendments. Applying these principles, the Tribunal concluded that the amended definition of "undisclosed income" could not apply to the assessee's case as the return was filed before the amendment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities and held that the penalty under section 158BFA(2) was not applicable to the present case due to the retrospective nature of the amendment. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was set aside.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced in the open court on February 17, 2017.

---