Review penalty for non-disclosure of foreign assets

A recent tribunal decision upholding a penalty of 10 lakh for non-disclosure of foreign assets brings up concerns about the proportionality of the penalty. The government should consider whether the cost of litigation is in the country's interest and if a more nominal penalty would be appropriate.

Gautam Nayak
Updated9 Oct 2023, 09:10 PM IST
There are a large number of cases where foreign assets have been acquired out of disclosed incomes. (iStockphoto)
There are a large number of cases where foreign assets have been acquired out of disclosed incomes. (iStockphoto)

Under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, a penalty is provided for failure by a resident taxpayer to furnish or furnishing inaccurate particulars of foreign assets or foreign incomes in the return of income. The penalty is 10 lakh, and the only exception is for a foreign bank account whose balance was less than equivalent of 5 lakh during the year. The CBDT, in a circular issued in 2015, had clarified that non-disclosure in Schedule FA (Foreign Assets Schedule) of the tax return, of a foreign asset acquired out of disclosed income, would attract the penalty.

A recent tribunal decision upholding levy of penalty on a taxpayer for three years brings out how draconian such a provision is, if interpreted literally. In this case, the taxpayer and her husband had remitted funds from India to a bank account abroad under the Liberalised Remittance Scheme, and invested jointly in an overseas fund from such bank account. Interest income from the fund was disclosed as income in the first year, and the capital gains was offered to tax in the fourth year. The taxpayer, however, did not disclose her investment in the fund in the Foreign Assets Schedule for the first 3 years, nor did her husband.

A penalty of 10 lakh was levied for each of the first three years on the taxpayer, but not her husband. The taxpayer claimed that it was a genuine mistake, and that the asset was not an undisclosed foreign asset, as it was acquired out of taxed funds remitted from India. The tribunal confirmed the levy of the penalty for all three years, on the ground that for such penalty, it was not necessary that the asset was acquired out of undisclosed funds, and there was nothing to show that it was a genuine and bona fide error.

In other earlier similar cases, the tribunals have taken a more lenient view of the matter, holding that the language of the law showed that there was a discretion as to whether to levy penalty or not in such a case. In the context of penalty generally, the Supreme Court has taken a view that penalty should not be imposed merely because the law permits levy of such a penalty. It should be imposed only where the law was deliberately flouted, or there was dishonest conduct or an obligation was consciously disregarded. The tribunals have therefore earlier held that in such genuine cases of oversight to include such assets in Schedule FA, penalty should not be levied.

Another interesting aspect is that the law does not require the asset to be disclosed only in Schedule FA of the return—any disclosure in any part of the return should suffice. Disclosure of income from such assets in the return, besides amounting to an indirect disclosure of the existence of the foreign assets, also clearly demonstrates the bona fide of the taxpayer—that the intention was to pay tax on all such income and disclose such assets.

There are a large number of cases where foreign assets have been acquired out of disclosed incomes, and the income from such assets has been offered to tax, but the foreign assets may not have been separately declared in Schedule FA due to oversight. Notices are being issued in many such cases for verification. If penalty is imposed in all such cases and matters have to be disputed in appeal before the Tribunal, it would lead to unnecessary litigation, tension and expense for taxpayers. In many such cases, the amount of penalty for all the relevant years may even exceed the value of the asset which was not included in Schedule FA.

Should the penalty not match the gravity and size of the offence? Can it be so disproportionate, with a large penalty being levied for mere oversight, which is normally the case where the asset was acquired out of disclosed funds? Would a nominal penalty not be more appropriate in such cases? Unfortunately, the law requires levy of either no penalty or a penalty of 10 lakh.

The whole purpose of the Black Money Act was to punish offenders who had acquired foreign assets out of undisclosed income. Such assets of course attract a penalty of three times the value of the asset, again linked to the size of the offence. The penalty for non-disclosure in Schedule FA was maybe intended also for such cases.

The government needs to take a view as to whether levy of such penalty on so many taxpayers, and the cost of the resultant litigation is in the interest of the country or not. The mere fact that a notice is issued should suffice to warn taxpayers of the possible consequences of negligence in filling up the return, and ensure that they are more diligent in doing so. A clarification or action in this regard would save many genuine taxpayers from unnecessary harassment.

Gautam Nayak is partner at CNK & Associates LLP.

Catch all the Instant Personal Loan, Business Loan, Business News, Money news, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.

MoreLess
First Published:9 Oct 2023, 09:10 PM IST
Business NewsMoneyPersonal FinanceReview penalty for non-disclosure of foreign assets

Get Instant Loan up to ₹10 Lakh!

  • Employment Type

    Most Active Stocks

    Tata Steel share price

    159.55
    03:57 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    -4.75 (-2.89%)

    Bharat Electronics share price

    280.20
    03:58 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    12.85 (4.81%)

    Tata Motors share price

    919.85
    03:58 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    -8.25 (-0.89%)

    Zee Entertainment Enterprises share price

    126.80
    03:59 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    0.75 (0.6%)
    More Active Stocks

    Market Snapshot

    • Top Gainers
    • Top Losers
    • 52 Week High

    Trent share price

    8,047.80
    03:41 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    598.35 (8.03%)

    Dixon Technologies (India) share price

    14,557.00
    03:29 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    1061.15 (7.86%)

    IPCA Laboratories share price

    1,536.90
    03:58 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    50.6 (3.4%)

    Coforge share price

    7,323.60
    03:44 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    115.45 (1.6%)
    More from 52 Week High

    NMDC share price

    219.10
    03:42 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    -9.7 (-4.24%)

    Vijaya Diagnostic Centre share price

    948.70
    03:28 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    -33.25 (-3.39%)

    SBI Life Insurance Company share price

    1,732.15
    03:29 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    -54.8 (-3.07%)

    Tata Steel share price

    159.55
    03:57 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    -4.75 (-2.89%)
    More from Top Losers

    Varun Beverages share price

    589.90
    03:50 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    48.1 (8.88%)

    Housing & Urban Development Corporation share price

    228.95
    03:59 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    18.65 (8.87%)

    Doms Industries share price

    2,683.40
    03:29 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    214.9 (8.71%)

    Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers share price

    1,662.90
    03:49 PM | 8 OCT 2024
    126.35 (8.22%)
    More from Top Gainers

    Recommended For You

      More Recommendations

      Gold Prices

      • 24K
      • 22K
      Bangalore
      77,455.00-220.00
      Chennai
      77,461.00-220.00
      Delhi
      77,613.00-220.00
      Kolkata
      77,465.00-220.00

      Fuel Price

      • Petrol
      • Diesel
      Bangalore
      102.86/L0.00
      Chennai
      100.75/L0.00
      Kolkata
      104.95/L0.00
      New Delhi
      94.72/L0.00

      Popular in Money

        HomeMarketsloanPremiumMint Shorts