Home › Tax Laws › Shobha Harish Thawani (Ms.) v. Jt. CIT (2023) 154 taxmann.com564 / 226 TTJ 593(Mum) ( Trib.) Editorial : Appeal is pending for admission before Bombay High Court .

Shobha Harish Thawani (Ms.) v. Jt. CIT (2023) 154 taxmann.com564 / 226 TTJ 593(Mum) ( Trib.) Editorial : Appeal is pending for admission before Bombay High Court .

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015

S. 43:Penalty for failure to furnish return of income an information or furnish inaugurate particulars of an asset ( Including financial interest in any entity ) outside India -Did not disclose foreign asset in ITR Schedule FA, order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming levy of penalty under section 43 of Black Money Act is affirmed . [ ITAct, S.139 ]

 

Assessee-Individual, made a joint investment (with her husband) in Global Dynamic Opportunity Fund having 40 per cent share but failed to disclose said foreign asset in schedule FA of income tax return . Assessing Officer levied penalty towards non-disclosure under section 43 of BM Act for each of assessment years which was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) .  Tribunal held that  it is apparent from language of section 43 of BM Act that disclosure requirement is not only for undisclosed asset but any asset held by assessee as a beneficial owner or otherwise .Provisions of section 43 of BM Act does not provide any room not to levy penalty even if foreign asset is disclosed in books since penalty is levied only towards non-disclosure of foreign assets in schedule FA. Therefore, there was no infirmity in order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming levy of penalty under section 43 of BM Act for non-disclosure of foreign assets in return of income filed by assessee (AY. 2016-17 to 2018-19)