M/S. MONO STEEL (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in passing the impugned order ex-parte and without deciding the Appeal on merits.

Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of learned AO in levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act amounting to Rs.36,31,592/-.

In any case, the quantification of the penalty is erroneous and excessive.

In any case, the penalty order is barred by limitation and therefore not sustainable.

Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not properly appreciating and considering various evidence and supporting documents available on record during the course of the assessment proceedings and not properly appreciating various facts and law in its proper perspective.

Your appellant reserves the right to add, delete, modify or revise any ground of appeal."

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of Manufacturing and Resale of Angle Channels Ingots. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the power plant division of the assessee had a turnover of 14.51 crores on which net profit of Rs.9.75 crores was shown. This net profit percentage shown by the assessee on it's power plant division amounted to 67.16% as against net profit percentage of 2.77% shown by the assessee on it's steel business. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80-IA in respect of it's power plant division on which a very high net profit rate of 67.16% was declared. However, the net profit rate from the steel plant unit, which was inextricably related to the power plant unit and on which no deduction was claimed, was shown at a very low figure of 2.77% only. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had loaded more profits to the power plant unit, on which deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act was claimed and assessee had reduced the profits of the steel plant, so as to evade taxes. The Assessing Officer noted that on being asked, the assessee failed to furnish distribution of expenses under the head “other expenses