TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, prayed that the said order may please be quashed as having been time-barred in law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in fact in confirming the action of the Id. AO in levying penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) of the Act of Rs. 58,000/- in complete disregard of law and the facts and, thus, such penalty is prayed to be cancelled." 3. In the first ground assessee has challenged order passed by the AO on the ground of its being time barred by limitation u/s. 158BFA(2). Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed this ground of the assessee taken before him by observing as under:- "2.2. I have considered the matter. As recorded in the penalty order, notice u/s.158BFA(2) was issued and served on the appellant on 24.2,2005. Appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held that penalty order u/s.158 BFA(2) dated 8.12.2009 was passed within the prescribed statutory time limit. Ground No. .l of appeal is dismissed." Since the categorical finding of Ld. CIT(A) that ITAT's order was received for the first time on 20-07-2009 by the CIT concerned has not been controverted by the assessee by placing any material on record to the contrary, we are of the considered opinion that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the penalty order u/s. 158BFA(2) dated 18-12-2009 was passed within the prescribed statutory time limit. Therefore, this ground of the assessee is dismissed. 4. Second ground relates to levying of penalty u/s. 158BFA(2) of Rs. 58,000/-. 5. This penalty was levied in respect of undisclosed income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y giving due weightage to preliminary statements of appellant and his wife, Assessing Officer accepted 300 gms of gold ornaments as belonging to daughter, Smt. Purviben also. The ITAT allowed further credit for 250 gms. in the hands of unmarried daughter and further 200 gms. for married daughter (balance out of 500 gms.) by following CBDT's Instruction No.1916. Appellant's contention that ITAT did not take into consideration affidavit of married daughter and her mother-in-law is not correct since ITAT rejected this claim by observing that no evidence was brought on record by the appellant to prove that 539.7 gms, were disclosed by married daughter of the appellant in her wealth-tax or income tax return. Further, Assessing Officer wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stimate basis. However, the estimate was arrived at by giving benefit of doubt to the appellant in all respects. The remaining jewellery, i.e. 191.1 gms. was what remained unexplained even after giving credit for possession of jewellery by all the family members on the basis of appellant and his wife's statement without any supporting documentary evidence or disclosure to the Department in I.T./W.T. returns and on the basis of id instruction No-1916, which are actually guidelines for search party for seizure purposes only. The undisclosed income of Rs. 95,550/- determined after giving effect to ITAT's Order is held to be liable for penalty u/s.158 BFA(2). Appellant's contention that levy of penalty is not automatic or penalty pr....