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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1932/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 March 2022AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that not all of the assessee's submissions were considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the penalty issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee received an unsecured loan of Rs. 50 Lacs which was added to its income under Section 68 for lack of confirmation. Consequently, a penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty but restricted it to 100% of the tax evaded.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was justified, and whether all submissions of the assessee were properly considered by the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry [CIT(A)] dated 23-05-2019 in the matter of penalty levied by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 18.06.2018. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for Rs.15.45 Lacs 2 - 2. At the time of hearing none appeared for assessee. Upon perusal of the order sheet entries, it could be seen that none is appearing for the assessee since past many occasions. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 24th March, 2022.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →