THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE , PUNE vs. MALLINATH SHARNAYYA SWAMI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court found merit in the Revenue's submission that the Tribunal had not applied its mind to the judicious exercise of discretion by the Assessing Officer when imposing the penalty. The Court noted that the assessee's failure to pay tax on the basis of the return under Section 158BC(a) meant that one of the conditions in the proviso to Section 158BFA(2) was not met. The reasons provided by the Tribunal for setting aside the penalty were not considered a "considered decision." Consequently, the High Court set aside the ITAT's order dated April 4, 2008, and remanded the proceedings back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits were kept open. The appeal was disposed of without costs.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Pune, appealed against an order of the ITAT dated April 4, 2008. The ITAT had set aside a penalty imposed under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A search and seizure action was conducted on August 27, 2002. The assessee, Mallinath Sharnayya Swami, filed a block return declaring undisclosed income of Rs. 12.01 lakhs, with a tax payable of Rs. 7.56 lakhs, but made no payment. An order under Section 158BC(c) determined undisclosed income at Rs. 91.23 lakhs. This was later modified in appeal to Rs. 12,60,286/-. The penalty was levied under Section 158BFA(2) concerning this undisclosed income.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal has set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for valid and justifiable reasons (question of law). Assessee's Contention (as noted by the Tribunal): The levy of penalty is not mandatory but a matter of judicial discretion. The assessee argued that the case fell within the scope of cited decisions and commentary, making it not a fit case for penalty. Revenue's Contention: The Tribunal failed to apply its mind to whether the penalty was imposed judiciously by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue argued that since the assessee had not paid the tax on the basis of the return under Section 158BC(a), one of the conditions in the proviso to Section 158BFA(2) was not fulfilled.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 158BFA(2),Section 158BC(c),Section 158BC(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1707 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ) Central Circle Pune, P.M.T. Building, ) 'A' Wing, Swargate, Pune-411 037. )..Appellant. V/s. Malllinath Sharnayya Swami, ) C/o. M/s. M.S.Swami (BPC Dealer), ) At & Post Jakekur, Tal. Omerga, ) Dist. Osmanabad, Pin -413606. )..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mr. M.K. Kulkarni i/b. Sagar Kasar for respondent. CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)
1) Admit. 3) The issue involved in this appeal against the decision of the ITAT dated 4th April, 2008 is whether the Tribunal has set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for valid and justifiable reasons. CNR No : HCBM020233892008 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:11:52
2 3) The facts in brief are that a search and seizure action was conducted on 27th August, 2002. A block return was filed declaring undisclosed income of Rs.12.01 lakhs and tax payable was mentioned as Rs. 7.56 lakhs. No payment of tax was made. An order was passed under Section 158BC(c) determining undisclosed income of Rs.91.23 lakhs. In appeal, the order was modified and the undisclosed income was arrived at Rs.12,60,286/-. 4) Sub-section (2) of Section 158BFA of the Act provides that the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under Chapter XIV B, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount of tax leviable but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax so leviable in respect of the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer under clause (c) of Section 158BC. The proviso to sub-section (2) carves out an exception and provides the circumstances in which no order imposing a penalty shall be made. One of the requirements thereof is that the tax payable on the basis of such return under under clause (a) of Section 158BC has been paid; or if the assets seized consist of money, the assessee offers the money so seized to be adjusted against the tax payable. The Tribunal, while setting aside the order imposing the penalty, noted the contention of the assessee that the levy of a penalty is not mandatory, merely because it would be lawful to do so. It is a matter of discretion to be exercised judicially. The Tribunal thereupon cited an extract from Sampat Iyengar's Law of Income Tax, 10th Edition, page 8708 and then proceeded to observe as follows:- Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:11:52
3 " Since the assessee has made out his case within the four corner of the cited decisions and as also mentioned in the quoted commentary, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty, respectfully following the proposition laid down, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby reserve the findings of the authorities below and direct to delete the penalty. " 5) There is merit in the submission which was urged on behalf of the Revenue that the Tribunal has not applied its mind as to whether the penalty in the present case was imposed in the judicious exercise of his discretion by the Assessing Officer. The contention of the Revenue is that since the assessee has not paid the tax on the basis of the return under Section 158BC(a), one of the conditions mentioned in the proviso was not fulfilled, in any case. In our view, the reasons which have been indicated by the Tribunal, as noted earlier, while setting aside the penalty, do not disclose a considered decision. In these circumstances, we set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 4th April, 2008 and remand the proceedings back for fresh consideration. All the rights and contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:11:52 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
More judgments on Section 158BFA(2)
- Hemendra Agarwal, Agra vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 364/AGR/2026[2014-2015]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2014-2015
- Pankaj M Patel Legal Heir of Mohanlal M… vs CIT (A) - 51, MumbaiITSSA 6106/MUM/2025[1996-97]Status: Disposed13 Feb 2026AY 1996-97
- Rajendra Popat Shinde Lh Minaxi Rajendra… vs DCIT Circle Dhule, MaharastraITSSA 1/PUN/2019[1988-89]Status: Disposed26 Jun 2025AY 1988-89
- Mohammed Shafi, Bundi vs ACIT, Circle-1 Kota, KotaITA 208/JPR/2024[BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1989-90 TO 1999-2000]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2025
- Mohammed Shafi, Bundi vs ACIT, C-1, KotaITA 207/JPR/2024[BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1989-90 TO 1999-00]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2025
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026