Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable automatically on the difference between the assessed undisclosed income and the income returned under section 158BC, or whether the authority was required to consider the facts and circumstances, including the assessee's bona fides, before imposing penalty.
Analysis: The penalty provision was held to be discretionary because sub-section (2) uses the word "may" for levy of penalty, while sub-section (3) requires a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Penalty proceedings were treated as distinct from assessment proceedings and not to be imposed merely because it was lawful to do so. The Tribunal further noted that no incriminating material was found in search, the legal heir was initially unaware of the deceased assessee's share transactions, and the revised return was filed upon discovery of the relevant facts. On these facts, the omission was treated as bona fide and the income was not regarded as undisclosed income warranting penalty merely on technical grounds.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 158BFA(2) was not automatic and was not justified on the facts; the deletion of penalty was upheld in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under section 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is discretionary and cannot be imposed mechanically; the authority must consider the assessee's bona fides, the surrounding circumstances, and the requirement of reasonable opportunity before levying penalty.