9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in upholding the penalty levied under Section 43 of the Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (the Act) by the Assessing Officer for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- for alleged non-disclosure of foreign assets in the Schedule-FA of the Return of Income. 2 It is submitted that the alleged non-disclosure of foreign assets/non- compliance is neither intentional nor deliberate and has resulted consequent to ignorance of the relevant provisions and no proper guidance provided. Accordingly, it is submitted that the rigorous/stringent provisions of Section 43 of the Act, cannot be invoked in case of such a solitary incident. 3. The learned Assessing Officer & the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant has co-operated wholeheartedly throughout the assessment proceedings and has furnished all the relevant details/data/documents required for the assessment and has also furnished a Revised return of Income voluntarily and on his own volition after paying the related taxes, as soon as the Appellant discovered the oversight/lapse on his part 4. The Appellant prays that the penalty levied under Section 43 of the Bla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 07/10/2022 from the DDIT (Inv)-4(1) FAIU inquiring into his investment in the Canada Life Offshore Bond (Canada Life International Limited) which is registered in the Isle of Man, a tax haven. Considering the importance of the summon the assessee filed a revised return of Income surrendering the income earned overseas to tax in India, along with making adequate disclosures in the Foreign Assets schedule of the ITR. Revised ROI was filed on 24-11-2022, i.e. within the time available under Section 139(5) of the Act. The Revised ROI was processed and found to be in order vide Intimation under Section 143(1) dated 24/11/2022. The Revised ROI was also produced before the DDIT (Inv)-4(1) FAIU during the course of his investigation. A complete disclosure of the facts and figures were made during the course of the investigation proceedings which concluded in the Ld. AO levied a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-under Section 43 of the BMA (UFIA), 2015. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). But the impugned was failed. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before us. 4. We have heard the arguments presented by both parties and carefully examined the documents on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The term "fails to furnish any information is sufficient to include in its ambit non-disclosure of a foreign asset. Also, even if the disclosure is made, furnishing of inaccurate particulars about a foreign asset also would make the assessee liable for penalty u/s 43 of BMA. In the present case, it was mandatory for the assessee to disclose the foreign assets accurately in the return. The mandate to file such information was introduced in the Income Tax Act from AY 2012-13 onwards and it is noted that the appellant has failed to file the particulars of the foreign asset in the return filed by him for the relevant assessment year." 6. The Ld.AR in argument placed that the assessee filed the return of income under section 139(1) where the assessee had not declared the foreign asset, but he revised his return and filed within the due date by declaring the foreign asset accordingly. Due to wrong advice from the professionals, the assessee had not submitted the details of foreign asset in the original return. The revised return was within the time limit and the revenue authorities rejected the revised return of the assessee filed under section 139(5) of the Act. The Ld.AR distinguishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows: "Although the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the presumption under Section 54 of the Black Money Act favors the prosecution, requiring the accused to rebut it, this argument is not sustainable. The initial burden of proof always lies with the complainant-prosecution. Once this burden is discharged, only then does the burden shift to the accused to rebut the legal presumption. If the foreign assets were already disclosed in the revised ITR under Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be concluded that there was any willful non-disclosure on the part of the accused. The question of rebutting the presumption under Section 54 of the Black Money Act arises only when there is mens rea on the part of the accused. Moreover, if an assessee fails to disclose foreign assets under sub-sections (1), (4), or (5) of Section 139 of the Income Tax Act or fails to furnish any information regarding an asset for a given financial year, the Assessing Officer may impose a penalty as per Section 43 of the Black Money Act. However, in the present case, the Income Tax Department has not established that the petitioner derived any income from these assets. Therefore, sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
