JSGR ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD - 1,, PONDICHERRY

Facts leading to imposition of impugned penalty are that the assessee was assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 20-12-2017. Upon perusal of the financial statements, it transpired that the assessee received unsecured loan of Rs. 50 Lacs from M/s. Achariya Educational Public Trust, Pondicherry. In the absence of any confirmation forthcoming from the lender, the said amount of Rs.50 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68. Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated and the assessee was saddled with penalty of Rs.46.35 Lacs vide penalty order dated 18.06.2018 which was computed @300% of tax sought to be evaded by the assessee.

Upon further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty since the assessee could not explain the credit and therefore, it concealed the correct income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However, considering the factual matrix, the penalty was restricted to the extent of 100% of tax sought to be evaded by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

Upon perusal of impugned order, we find that the assessee, in its written submissions to learned first appellate authority, has assailed the penalty on various facets. The same has been enumerated in Para 5.3 of the order. However, all the submissions have not been considered while adjudicating the appeal and it has been alleged that the assessee concealed the correct income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore the 3 - issue of penalty back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to adjudicate the issue by way of speaking order after considering the material on record.

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.