9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of interest under Section 158BFA(1) of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Levy of Interest under Section 158BFA(1): The appeal arose from an order by the CIT(A)-III, New Delhi, concerning the block period 1992 to 1998, following a search and seizure operation on the Mesco Group of companies on 26th Feb., 1997. The search concluded on 27th March, 1997, and a notice under Section 158BC was issued on 21st Aug., 1997, requiring the assessee to file a block return within 45 days. The assessee requested photocopies of the seized material, which were only provided by 20th Nov., 1998, leading to a delayed return filed on 1st Jan., 1999. The assessment was completed on 16th March, 1999, with an undisclosed income of Rs. 1,04,94,584, and the assessee challenged the additions and the levy of interest under Section 158BFA(1). The core issue was whether the interest under Section 158BFA(1) was rightly levied and upheld. The assessee argued that the delay in filing the return was due to the late provision of photocopies of the seized material by the Revenue. The assessee cited several Tribunal decisions, notably Bachubhai S. Antrolia vs. Asstt. CIT, which held that the interest under Section 158BFA(1) is penal in nature and not automatic, requiring an element of lack of bona fides for its imposition. The assessee contended that the delay was justified and beyond their control. The Revenue countered that the interest under Section 158BFA(1) is compensatory, not penal, and mandatory as per the statute. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, which emphasized the mandatory nature of interest provisions where the term "shall" is used. The Revenue argued that the assessee's request for photocopies was delayed and not within the initial 45-day period, thus justifying the interest levy. Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the provisions of Chapter XIV-B mandate the issuance of a notice under Section 158BC following a search, requiring the assessee to file a correct return based on seized documents. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of natural justice, stating that the assessee must have access to the seized documents to file an accurate return. The Tribunal found that the assessee had promptly requested the photocopies and filed the return within 40 days of receiving them. The delay was attributed to the Revenue's delay in providing the documents, not to the assessee's conduct. Considering these factors, the Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the return was not attributable to the assessee, and therefore, the interest under Section 158BFA(1) was not leviable for the period required to obtain the seized material. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the interest levied under Section 158BFA(1) and reversed the CIT(A)'s order on this issue. In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
|
