2009 (6) TMI 898 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the lower authorities acted judiciously in disposing of the submissions of the assessee.
2. Whether the levy of penalty under section 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is justified.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Judicious Disposal by Lower Authorities:
The assessee contended that both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) failed to act judiciously and acted arbitrarily and prejudicially. The Tribunal examined the records and found that the lower authorities had conducted a detailed examination of the facts and evidence. The Tribunal noted that during the search and seizure operation on February 2, 2001, at the assessee's residence and business premises, unexplained cash and investments were found. The AO and CIT(A) had considered various statements and documents, including the assessee's statements at the IGI airport and during the search under section 132. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities had acted judiciously and there was no arbitrary or prejudicial action.

2. Justification of Penalty Levy under Section 158BFA(2):
The Tribunal analyzed whether the penalty under section 158BFA(2) was justified. The key points considered were:

- Ownership of Cash: The assessee was found with Rs. 18,07,500 in cash at the IGI airport, which he initially claimed was for purchasing diamonds for his proprietary concern, M/s. Sona Jewellers. However, the cash was not accounted for in the books of M/s. Sona Jewellers. The second page of the assessee's statement, which was unsigned, indicated that the cash was unaccounted and belonged to his proprietary concern.

- Statements and Evidence: The Tribunal reviewed the statements of the assessee and other individuals involved. The assessee's explanations were inconsistent, particularly regarding the ownership of the cash. The Tribunal noted that at the airport, the assessee did not mention that the cash belonged to Hira Jewellers P. Ltd., and the alleged letter from the company was not produced at that time. The statements of other employees corroborated that bills were written without actual sales.

- Quantum Proceedings: The Tribunal referred to the quantum proceedings where the explanation of the assessee regarding the cash was rejected. The lower authorities had found that the cash was not accounted for and the explanation provided by the assessee was not bona fide.

- Legal Precedents: The Tribunal considered various legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, K. P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT, and Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors. The Tribunal noted that the penalty under section 158BFA(2) is not automatic and must be based on the circumstances and explanations provided by the assessee. However, in this case, the explanation was not found to be bona fide.

- Discretion and Application of Mind: The Tribunal emphasized that the authorities have discretion in levying penalties and must apply their mind to the facts of the case. In this case, the lower authorities had applied their mind and found that the penalty was warranted due to the lack of a bona fide explanation for the unaccounted cash.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities had acted judiciously and the levy of penalty under section 158BFA(2) was justified. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on June 5, 2009.