Madho Das Bangard v. ACIT (2022) 93 ITR 622 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 158BFA : Block assessment-Penalty-No incriminating material found or seized-Estimate of income-Benami transaction-Failure to record satisfaction-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 158BC, 158BF(2)]

Held that when the very basis of initiation of penalty had changed the initiation of penalty was no more sustainable in the eyes of law. Further, the Assessing Officer had not mentioned his satisfaction in the assessment order before issuing show-cause notice and referring the matter for initiation of penalty. Even otherwise, the penalty as sought to be imposed was on the basis of section 158BFA(2). According to that provision, the imposition of penalty was not automatic. The satisfaction for imposition of penalty was required to be recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order.  On facts not only undisclosed income had been reduced but the basis for calculating the undisclosed income had also been changed and hence the penalty was deleted. (AY.1997-98 to 2003-04)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *