MENETA AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3015/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 August 2022AY 2014-154 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) as the loss claimed was capital in nature and not deductible. The assessee's failure to appear or provide any counter-material led to the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction for loss on sale of capital work in progress, which was not allowable. The addition was agreed to after the AO confronted the assessee, and penalty proceedings were initiated. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable for claiming an inadmissible deduction of capital loss, and whether the assessee's non-appearance impacts the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

Hearing: 02.08.2022Pronounced: 05.08.2022

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–6,Delhi, dated 19.03.2018.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO for imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,350,102/- under section 271(l)(c) of the Act by alleging that the appellant has concealed the particulars of income.

2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act related to inadvertently not adding back by appellant a sum of Rs. 3,972,057/- towards loss on sale of capital work in progress (which was also duly disclosed in the Tax Audit Report) which is a sheer inadvertent error of the appellant.

3.The Learned CIT(A) as well as AO has not appreciated that the appellant has made all the other applicable disallowances and there is no history of concealment of income of the appellant. This inadvertent mistake of first time should not be considered as concealment.

4. The Above ground are independent and without prejudice to each other.

TheAppellant prays that it may be allowed to add, alter, or forego any of the groundat the time of hearing in the interest of principle of natural justice.”

3.

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been initiated against the Assessee and an order of penalty came to be passed o 29/06/2017. The assessee has preferred an appeal before he CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has made following observations and the conclusions.

“From the discussion above it is clear that the addition was agreed to only after theAO confronted the assessor1 with the issue vide questionnaire dated 07.11.2016 as is apparent from die assessment order. The said loss being capital in nature could not have horn claimed as a deduction in the profit and loss account. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of lire case and relying on tire decision of tire Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the a so of CFT vs. NG Technologies Ltd. (supra), tire imposition of penalty on tire amount disallowed on account of loss on sale of capital work in progress is upheld. Grounds of apnea! nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed.”

4.

When the case called, none appeared for the assessee on verifying the order sheet, it is found that after filing the appeal the assessee has not appeared even once though the several notices have been issued to the registered address of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the assessee is not interested to proceed with the Appeal. Therefore, we are compelled to decide the present appeal by hearing the Ld. DR and also by verifying the material on record.

5.

As observed by the Ld.CIT (A),“the addition was agreed to only after the A.O confronted the assessee with the issue vide questionaries dated 07/11/2016 which is apparent from the assessment order”. The assessee has falsely claimed the deduction in the profit and loss account though the said loss being a capital in nature. The assessee is neither present before us nor he has produced any documents to counter or to clarify the said facts and further no contrary material is forth coming or canvassed by the assessee before us. Therefore, we hold that, the Ld.CIT(A) has committed no error or legal infirmity in deciding the Appeal against the assessee. Accordingly, the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee are dismissed.

6.

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed Ex-parte. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/08/2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →