TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....short, the Act), is directed against the order dated 14.8.2008 passed in ITA.No.0163/Mds/2006 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the block assessment period from 1996-97 to 2002-03 and upto 13.9.2001. 3. The appeal was admitted on 19.10.2009 on the following substantial questions of law : "i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty under Section 158BFA(2) was not leviable on the difference between the undisclosed income returned by the assessee and the undisclosed income finally determined after giving effect to the Tribunal's directions based on suppression of quantum and value of gold, diamonds and other assets in the qua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....158BFA of the Act and more particularly when the conditions stipulated in Clauses (i) to (iv) of the Proviso under Sub- Section (2) of Section 158BFA stand attracted in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the stand taken by the assessee and by order dated 19.7.2005, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act equivalent to that of the amount of tax. 6. The matter was taken on appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Coimbatore [for brevity, the CIT(A)] and it was dismissed vide order dated 24.4.2006. As against that, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal and set aside the levy of penalty and this is how the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue as to whether any discretion is vested with the Assessing Officer in the matter of levy of penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act. We refer to a few decisions. 10. In the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court of in the case of CIT Vs. Harkaran Das Ved Pal [reported in (2011) 336 ITR 8], it was held that the the Assessing Officer has discretion to impose penalty, as it is apparent from the use of the expression 'may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty'. It was further held that once the Assessing Officer exercising his discretion comes to the conclusion that penalty is imposable, the Statute requires that such sum of penalty 'shall' not be less than the amount of tax leviable, but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee. 14. Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that penalty was not leviable, as the assessee did not commit any willful default and the assessee claimed that the additions made were only due to the difference in estimate and interpretation and that no mistake was committed by the assessee willfully. 15. In fact, identical is the issue in the case of Harkaran Das Ved Pal wherein also the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that computation of undisclosed income could not be considered as undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer under Clause (c) of Section 158BC of the Act, as it was found that no amount was found to have been invested by the assessee in the first instance for the transactions of the whole year a....