KRISHNA DAS AGRAWAL,JAIPUR V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE JAIPUR, JAIPUR

MA 22/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application by Sh. Krishna Das Agarwal against the penalty imposed under Section 43 of the Black Money Act, 2015, which was upheld in a previous order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The applicant contended that the penalty was discretionary and should be reduced, contrary to the Tribunal's earlier decision which upheld the penalty as mandatory. The Tribunal reviewed the arguments and precedents cited by both parties but found no grounds to alter its previous decision, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer had exercised his discretion appropriately in imposing the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35342 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Price Water House Coopers Private Limited vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306
• Laws Referred To: Black Money Act, 2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: TANUJ KUMAR AGARWAL
• Keywords: Ignorance of law
• Section: 43; 13

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM MA No. 22/JPR/2025 (Arising out of BMA No.2/JPR/2024) fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sh. Krishna Das Agarwal B-302, Aurum Trimurty, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. cuke v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Rage, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAPA2701Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Tanuj Kumar Agarwal, Adv. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 25/03/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 26 /03/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER . This order is to dispose of the above captioned Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee in respect of order dated 6.2.2025, passed by this Appellate Tribunal, in BMA No. 2/JPR/2024. Prayer in the application is that the penalty levied u/s 43 of Black Money Act, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act, 2015”) , as regards the assessment year 2016-17 be deleted. 2. Arguments heard. File perused. 2 MA No. 22/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishna Das Agarwal 3. Vide common order dated 6.2.2025, two appeals i.e. BMA 01 and 02/2024 were disposed of. By way of this application, the applicant seeks deletion of penalty, which has already been upheld vide said order, and thereby dismissing the appeal BMA 02/2024. 4. Ld. AR for the assessee-applicant has submitted that in last two paras at page 17 of the order dated 06.02.2025, this Appellate Tribunal observed that Section 43 of the Act, 2015, does not give any discretion to reduce the amount of penalty. Ld. AR contends that said provision is discretionary and not mandatory, and as such the amount of penalty could be reduced. 5. On the other hand, Learned DR has submitted that in the order this Appellate Tribunal has already discussed this very contention, and there is no ground for allowing this application. 6. At the time of final arguments in the appeals, Ld. AR for the assessee had raised this very contention that levy of penalty u/s 43 of the Act, 2015 is discretionary and not mandatory. We dealt with said contention raised on behalf of the assessee, in para 13 of the common order. 3 MA No. 22/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishna Das Agarwal At page 11 to 14 , we referred to the extracts of the decisions cited by ld. AR for the assessee in support of the said contention. We did not see any reason that the Assessing Officer should not have exercised his discretion in imposing the penalty, and further that the Assessing Officer exercised his discretion judiciously and not arbitrarily. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any mistake apparent from record or any merit in this ground raised by Ld. AR for the assessee seeking deletion of penalty. 8. Another submission by Ld. AR of the assessee is that 4 judgments of Coordinate Bench ITAT Mumbai Benches on the levy of penalty u/s 43 of the Act, 2015 (as mentioned in para 2.2 of the application) and 4 judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court (as mentioned in para 2.3 of the application) relied on by the assessee unfortunately skipped the attention of this Appellate Tribunal, while deciding the appeal. 9. Per Contra, Ld. DR for the department has submitted that at page 7 of the order, while referring to the provisions of Section 43 of the Act, 2015 and at page 8 of the common order, this Appellate Tribunal referred to the decisions relied on behalf of the assessee, at the time of final arguments, , and then extracted relevant portions, and as such there is no merit in this contention as well. 4 MA No. 22/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishna Das Agarwal 10. It may be mentioned here that at page 8 of the common order and from pages 11 to 14 thereof, only those cases find mentioned, extract of text of which were made available in the written submissions and were actually relied on by Ld. AR for the assessee. Learned AR for the applicant very well knows that no reliance can be placed only on the head-notes of decided cases or on the titles of the cases. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 4 judgments in para 2.2 and four decisions in para 2.3 (page 4) of the application skipped the attention of this Appellate Tribunal. 11. Another submission by Ld. AR for the assessee is that observations of the Coordinate Bench made in the case of the assessee himself were not applied, while dealing with matter. 12. In para 14, at page 14 of the common order, we appreciated the legal proposition put forth by Ld. DR for the appellant that quantum proceedings are different from the proceedings for levy of penalty. In the course of arguments in the appeals on merits, Ld. AR for the assessee did not controvert said legal proposition that quantum assessment proceedings are different from the proceedings for levy of penalty, and we specifically recorded about it in the order. 5 MA No. 22/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishna Das Agarwal Accordingly, we held that the observations made by the Coordinate Bench in the quantum assessment proceedings were of no avail to the assessee in the penalty proceedings. Therefore, this submission made by Ld. AR for the assessee is also without any merit. 13. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that at page 10 of the order, this Appellate Tribunal observed that the assessee had assistance of Chartered Accountant and practitioners, and as such ignorance of law cannot be treated as excuse for the assessee. The contention is that the decision cited on behalf of the assessee i.e. in the case of Price Water House Coopers Private Limited vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 skipped the attention of this Appellate Tribunal. 14. As regards ignorance of law, at page 10 of the common order we observed in the manner as under:- “11. Assessee also pleads ignorance of law, which came to be enacted in the year 2015. In this regard, suffice it to state that the Act, 2015 came to be implemented w.e.f. 26.5.2015. Ignorance of law is no excuse. Furthermore, the Assessee has nowhere claimed that he had no assistance of any Chartered Accountants or practitioners skilled in the subject or that for want of best legal advice on the subject, he could not disclose the foreign assets. Even if at the time of search proceedings, the assessee expressed that he was not aware of the legal requirement to report his foreign assets in the return of income in India and sought enlightenment over the subject so as to comply with said instructions, ignorance of law does not come to the aid of the assessee. 6 MA No. 22/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishna Das Agarwal It is significant to note that the assessee violated the provision of law not only once, but, even in the succeeding Assessment Year as well, by not furnishing requisite information in the return of income initially presented. “ 15. In the course of arguments, no reliance was placed on the above said decision i.e. Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. case (supra). Therefore, how could said decision find mention in para 11 of the order. This Appellate Tribunal held that in the return of income filed by the assessee, relating to the assessment year 2016-17, the assessee did not disclose the requisite information as regards his foreign assets, and as such, he violated the provisions of the said Act. Result 16. In view of the above discussion, we do not find that the order suffers from any mistake apparent from the record. Accordingly, this Misc. Application is hereby dismissed. Files be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/03/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26/03/2025 7 MA No. 22/JPR/2025 Sh. Krishna Das Agarwal *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Sh. Krishna Das Agarwal, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Addl. CIT, Central Rage, Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File MA No. 22/JPR/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar "