TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct'). 2. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act consequent to completion of block assessment under Section 158BC of the Act. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the assessee has disclosed a sum of Rs. 53,06,762/- which was treated as undisclosed income in the block period. However, the Assessing Officer determined the income during the block period at Rs. 1,23,01,214/-. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and the CIT(Appeals) found that the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 34,30,000/- was not justified. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition to the extent of Rs. 34,30,000/-. The assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain before the Assessing Officer why such difference has come. The handicap faced by the assessee, being the legal representative of the deceased, cannot be taken advantage by the Revenue for levying penalty. According to the Ld. counsel, levy of penalty is a discretion of Assessing Officer in the facts of each and every case. The power to levy penalty is one thing and exercising of that power is entirely another aspect. Therefore, merely because there was difference in respect of the investment made in the landed property in the amount disclosed in the VDI Scheme and actual investment, and the person who actually invested is no more, according to the Ld. counsel, levy of penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act is not justified. Accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Assessing Officer. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, during the pendency of the appeal before this Tribunal against the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee Shri K.C.G. Verghese expired. Therefore, the legal representative withdrew the appeal for the reason best known to them. Admittedly, after withdrawal of the appeal by the legal representative, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceeding under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act. The question arises for consideration is whether there was any concealment of income by the assessee, namely, Shri K.C.G. Verghese? We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section 158....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not trace out any papers after the expiry of the assessee. This impediment faced by the legal representative cannot be taken advantage by the Revenue authorities. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the power to levy penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act is one thing and exercising of that power is entirely different. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the power to levy penalty has to be exercised judiciously. Therefore, mere withdrawal of the appeal pending before this Tribunal by legal representative cannot be presumed that the assessee could not explain the difference between the returned income and assessed income. This Tribunal finds that Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Tikka Ram through L/H Smt. M....