LAXMIKANT M SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 30(2)(2), MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are, the assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) on 30.11.2012 and in the said assessment, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB to the extent of ₹25,05,037/- and the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the disallowance was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the ITAT. Before Laxmikant M. Sharma 2 ITAT, the assessee filed some additional evidences ad accordingly ITAT set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration vide order dated 21.10.2009 (ITA No. 6556/M/2008). The Assessing Officer vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 dated 13.03.2010 accepted the claim of the assessee. Subsequently, CIT(A)-24 observed after verifying the assessment records. The Assessing Officer in his order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 had accepted the claim of the assessee without verifying various aspects and hence, the said order was found erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, therefore, Ld. CIT(A)-24 passed the order u/s 263 dated 15.07.2011 setting aside the said order and restored the matter to the file of the AO, with a direction to pass a fresh order after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the Assessing Officer initiated the subsequent proceedings by issued the statutory notices to the assessee and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 30.11.2012, disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act. Accordingly, he initiated the penalty proceedings vide notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 30.11.2012 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with reference to disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IB of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty, the minimum penalty leviable i.e. 100% of the tax sought to be evaded ₹8,21,115/-. After taking prior approval of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Range-30(2).

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as the assessee did not produce any evidence during the course of appellate proceedings and neither attended the proceedings to pursue the appeal in spite of numerous opportunities.