Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI K.N. CHARY & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
This appeal by the Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVII, Delhi-110092, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 25.11.2013 for Assessment Year 2006-07, on the following grounds:
“i. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty of Rs. 60,77,308/- u/s 271(1)(c) and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
Fit for Publication ITA No- 1002/Del/2014 Sd/- (AM) Sd/- (JM) Padmini infrastructure Developers India Ltd. ii. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in as much as the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 26-09-2008 is also contrary to law and facts, void ab initio and not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. iv. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which is bad in law being beyond jurisdiction and barred by limitation and contrary to the principles of natural justice and has been passed by recording incorrect facts and findings and without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee and the same is not sustaining on various legal and factual grounds. v. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in imposing a penalty of Rs. 60,77,308/- that too without recording mandatory “satisfaction” as per. vi. That the assessee craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
(2) The Assessee filed return of income on 23.11.2006, wherein deduction amounting to Rs. 3,44,56,419/- was claimed U/s 80IB(10) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“I.T. Act”, for short). Vide Assessment Order dated 26.09.2008 passed U/s 143(3) of I.T. Act; the deduction claimed by the assessee U/s 80IB(10) of the I.T.
Act was disallowed. In this Assessment Order, the Book Profit for the purposes of Section 115JB was determined at Rs. 3,61,09,972/-. Penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act were also initiated by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short).
Vide order dated 08.06.2010, in appeal no. 54/CIT(A)XVII/Del/08-09, Ld. CIT(A)
Fit for Publication ITA No- 1002/Del/2014 Sd/- (AM) Sd/- (JM) Padmini infrastructure Developers India Ltd. deleted the addition of Rs. 34456419/- which was made by AO under normal provisions. However, addition made in book profit (assessed at Rs. 36109972/- as against returned book profit of Rs. nil) was confirmed by CIT(A). Income was recomputed on 07.09.2010 vide order u/s 250/143(3) at Rs. 1959220/- under normal provision and of Rs. 36109972- u/s 115JB. Vide order dated 25.10.2017 of Co-ordinate Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (“ITAT”, for short), in Revenue’s appeal against the aforesaid order dated 08.06.2010 of the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed; and thus, the assessee’s claim U/s 80IB(10) of I.T. Act, was upheld. In the meantime, however, the Assessing Officer passed order U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, dated 28.03.2012, imposing penalty amounting to Rs. 60,77,308/-. This penalty was levied in respect of addition u/s 115JB of I.T. Act. The relevant portions of the aforesaid Assessment Order dated 26.09.2008 and the aforesaid order dated 28.03.2012 U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, on Section 115JB of I.T. Act, are reproduced as under:
Relevant portions of Assessment order dated 26.09.2008
“Taxability u/s 115JB
Vide order sheet entry 10.07.08 assessee was asked to explain as to why the assessee has not paid tax u/s 115JB and as to how the assessee has filed Book Profit of NIL in its return of income, when the company is having profit as per companies Act of Rs. 3,61,09,972 which includes Income from business as per Income tax Act of Rs. 3,44,56,419 and Income from other sources of Rs. 19,59,218 thereby showing. Gross total Income of the year of Rs. 3,64,15,637. Vide letter Fit for Publication ITA No- 1002/Del/2014 Sd/- (AM) Sd/- (JM) Padmini infrastructure Developers India Ltd. dated 7.7.08, assessee replied that assessee has not paid any applicable tax u/s 115JB. Summons u/s 131 dated 10.07.08 and 18.07.08 were issued to Sh. Girish Batra, MD of the assessee company to file details of payment of taxes u/s 115JB for A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and to explain the reason for non-payment of taxes. Sh. Girish Batra neither appeared in response to summons nor assessee filed any reasons for non-payment of tax u/s 115JB. On 27.08.08 Sh. Rajeev Sharma counsel appeared for the assessee but could not explain as to why taxes u/s 115JB of the Act have not been paid for all these years. On perusal of assessment record, the details of Income, deduction u/s 80IB and payment of tax u/s 115JB is hereby produced.
A.Y. Gross Deduction Taxable Tax payable Total u/s 80IB Income as per MAT Income Shown by Assessee 2002-03 71,34,329 70,97,621 36,708 NIL 2003-04 11,04,978 11,04,978 NIL NIL 2004-05 88,77,733 86,38,298 2,39,435 NIL 2005-06 2,68,45,130 2,56,89,743 11,55,387 NIL 2006-07 3,64,15,637 3,44,56,419 19,59,218 NIL
On perusal of section 115JB it is abundantly clear that deduction u/s 80IB(10) is not allowed to be reduced from book profit for computation of tax u/s 115JB and assessee was liable to pay tax u/s 115JB of the Act. In the event of non-filing of details and non-filing of reasons for not paying taxes u/s 115JB I have reason to believe that assessee has concealed/filed inaccurate particulars of income liable for penal action u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The conduct of the assessee proves the malafide intention of evading taxes. In light of the above book profit for computation of tax u/s 115JB is assessed at Rs. 3,61,09,972 as against NIL filed by assessee.”
Relevant portions of Order Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
1. Assessment in the case was made u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 26.09.2008 (read with corrigendum order dated 07.11.2068 issued vide no. .1393)
Fit for Publication ITA No- 1002/Del/2014 Sd/- (AM) Sd/- (JM) Padmini infrastructure Developers India Ltd. on total income of Rs.36415637/- as against returned income of Rs. 1959220/- under normal provisions and at Rs.36109972/- as against returned income of Rs. Nil u/s 115JB. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act was initiated both in respect of addition under normal provisions as well as addition u/s 115JB during the assessment proceedings and notice u/s. 274 read with section 27i(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 26.09.2008 which remained uncomplied with. In response to further show cause notice dated 05.12.2008, assessee vide his letter dated 15.12.2008 requested for keeping the proceedings in abeyance on the ground of appeal being pending before CIT(A).
2. Ld. CIT(A)-XVII vide order dated 08.06.2010 in appeal no. 54/CIT(A) XVII/Del/08-09 deleted the addition of Rs. 34456419/- which was made by AO under normal provisions. However, addition made in book profit (assessed at Rs. 36109972/- as against returned book profit of Rs. nil) was confirmed by CIT(A). Income was recomputed on 07.09.2010 u/s 250/143(3) at Rs. 1959220/- under normal provision and Rs. 36109972/- u/s 115JB.
Accordingly, further show cause notices dated 18.01.2012, 06.02.2012 and 14.02.2012 were issued by speed post which also remained uncomplied with. It shows the non-cooperative and recalcitrant attitude of the assessee. It also goes to show that either the- assessee has admitted his fault or has nothing to say in the matter. During the course of assessment proceeding as well as appeal proceedings assessee has not given any submission/detail/evidence explaining the reasons for showing the book profit at Rs. Nil and also for non-payment of tax u/s 115JB which the assessee was required to pay before filing of return.
The discussion/finding on the issue as given in assessment order reads: “Vide order sheet entry 10.07.08 assessee was asked to explain as to why the assessee has not paid tax u/s 115JB and as to how the assessee has filed Book Profit of NIL in its return of income, when the company is having profit as per companies Act of Rs.3,61,09,972 which includes Income from business as per Income tax Act of Rs.3,44,56,419 and Income from other sources of Rs.19,59,218 thereby showing. Gross total Income of the year of Rs.3,64,15,637. Vide letter dated 7.7.08, assesses replied that assessee has not paid any applicable tax u/s 115J3. Summons u/s 131 dated 10.7.08 and 18.7.08 were issued to Sh. Girish Batra, MD of the assessee company to file details of payment of taxes u/s 115JB for A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 07, 2007-08 and to explain the reason for non-payment of taxes. Sh. Girish Batra neither appeared in response to summons mu assessee filed any reasons for non-payment of tax u/s 115JB. On Sh. Rajeev Sharma counsel appeared for the assessee b it could not explain as to why taxes u/s 115JB of the Act have not been paid for all these years………… On perusal of section 115JB it is abundantly clear that deduction u/s 80IB is not allowed to be reduced from book profit for computation of tax u/s 115JB and assessee was liable to pay tax u/s 115JB of the Act. In the event of non- Fit for Publication ITA No- 1002/Del/2014 Sd/- (AM) Sd/- (JM) Padmini infrastructure Developers India Ltd.
filing of details and non filing of reason for not paying taxes u/s 115JB I have reason to believe that assessee has concealed/filed inaccurate particulars of income liable for penal action u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The conduct of the assessee proves the malafide intention of evading taxes. In light of the above book profit for computation of tax u/s 115JB is assessed at Rs. 3,61,09,972 as against NIL filed by assessee.”
On this issue the order of CIT(A) also reads “the appellant has n-.A made any submission in respect of above grounds therefore, this ground, of appeal is rejected.
6. The assessee has not furnished any explanation with regard to the above addition/disallowance (which stood confirmed by CIT(A)) before the AO as well as before CIT(A) either during the course of assessment proceeding, appeal proceedings or even during the course of penalty proceedings u /s 271(1)©. Rather, the reverse was proved i.e. such amounts were required to be shown in the computation of book profit which it failed to do. Had the A.O missed out in making various queries and in scrutinizing/ examining the information/details minutely, this amounts could not have been brought to tax. It is further borne out from the fact that income is assessed u/s 143(1) at the same figure as disclosed by the assessee. It is only because that case was taken up in scrutiny (ail cases are assessed u/s 143(1) and only about 2% cases are scrutinized) that such addition/disallowance could be made. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is clearly leviable in such cases.
Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) has introduced a deeming provision which makes an assessee liable for penalty in respect of any amount which is added or disallowed, if the explanation offered by the assessee is either false or which he/it is not able to substantiate. In the present case, assessee was not able to substantiate its claim. Rather the fact of the matter is that no explanation, at all, has been offered by the assessee on this issue.
Almost every tax payer (except a few small taxpayers) is aware of the fact that only about 2% returns are taken up for scrutiny and this fact induces them to make such wrong/inadmissible claims with the intention of going scot-free, if the case is not taken up for scrutiny, which is apparent from the fact that assessment u/s 143(1) in the case has been made on returned income. Furthermore, disallowance/additions in sue a cases can be made only if the AO is having sufficient time 8s knowledge in catch hold of such deficiencies which is not possible in each and eve; v case. In the present-case, it can be safely inferred that assessee tried i n evade tax by making such inadmissible/wrong claim. Penal provisions a n meant only to have deterrent effect to dissuade tax payers for making sue a claims and will lose its impact if not applied in cases of such violation
8.1 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2010) 40 DTR (Del) 249, dated May 24, 2010 have observed as under “The Court cannot overlook the fact that only a small percentage of the Income Tax Returns are picked up for scrutiny. If the assessee makes a claim which is not Fit for Publication ITA No- 1002/Del/2014 Sd/- (AM) Sd/- (JM) Padmini infrastructure Developers India Ltd. only incorrect…… that would give a license to unscrupulous assessee to make wholly untenable and unsustainable claims without there being any basis for making them, in the hope that their return would not be picked for scrutiny and they would be assessed on the basis of self assessment under section 143(1) of the Act and even if their case is selected for scrutiny, they can get away merely by paying the tax, which in any case, was payable by them. The consequence would be that the persons who make claims of this nature, actuated by a malafide intention to evade tax otherwise payable by them would get away without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have. ”
Mere showing the item in the retun/accounts/tax audit report but not offering the same for taxation purpose cannot by itself take out the case from the purview of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the omission on the part of assessee not to include an item of receipt/income or to make any patently wrong claim in computation of taxable income though shown in the return/accounts certainly amounts to concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as such omission is clearly attributable to an intention of desire on the part of the assessee to avoid the imposition of tax thereon.
9.1 Explanation 1 to section 147, (though not directly concerned with the provision of section 271(1)(c), also lays down clearly that mere production/furnishing of books of accounts/details/documents, etc. (from which A.O. could with due diligence discover something) does not amount to true, full and correct disclosure on the part of the assessee so far as taxing of income is concerned.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudan vs. CIT", 251 ITR 99 has held that the onus is on the assessee to prove that he has not concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Ti e Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processor has held that the penalty is a civil liability and mens rea is not required to be established by the revenue. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 225 CTR (SC) 248 has held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is neither criminal nor quasi criminal but, a civil liability, albeit a strict liability. Such liability being civil in nature, mensrea is not essential - Explanation appended to S.271(1)© indicates element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing the return. Dillip N. Shroff has been held to be not laying down good law.
It view of this it is clear that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income in respect of the addition/disallowance ; s discussed above and accordingly, it is found to be a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act r.w. Explanations thereto. Here it is also noted that tax on book profit has not so far been paid by him assessee. It shows non cooperative and Fit for Publication ITA No- 1002/Del/2014 Sd/- (AM) Sd/- (JM) Padmini infrastructure Developers India Ltd.
recalcitrant attitude of the assessee. Its conduct further shows that its intention to pay the due and correct taxes is not above doubt. Considering the facts of the case an l conduct (furnishing of the required information and payment of due taxes-.) of the assessee, it is found to be a case fit for imposition of penalty at a rate higher than the minimum amount.”
(2.1) The Assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the aforesaid order dated 28.03.2012, passed U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act by the AO. Vide order dated 25.11.2013, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 60,77,308/- and dismissed the Assessee’s appeal. The relevant portion of order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:
“5. I shall now take up the various Grounds of Appeal which are all in respect of penalty of Rs.60,77,308/- imposed u/s 271(l)(c).
5.1 The appellant had filed Return of Income declaring income of Rs. 19,59,220/- . Addition u/s 143(3) was made vide order dated 26.09.2008 on total income of Rs.3,64,15,637/- under normal provisions and at Rs.3,61,09,972/-- u/s 115JB. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition under normal provisions but confirmed the addition u/s 115JB stating as under:-
"In the event of non-filing of details and non-filing of reason for not paying taxes u/s 115JB, I have reason to believe that assessee has concealed/filed inaccurate particulars of income liable for penal action 'u/s 271(i)(c) of the Act. The conduct of the assessee proves the mala-fide intention of evading taxes. In light of the above book profit for computation of tax u/s 115JB is assessed at Rs.3,61,09,972/- as against NIL filed by assessee."
5.2 Penalty initiated u/s 271(1)(c) in the order was therefore imposed by the AO. Penalty of Rs.60,77,308/- was imposed on Rs.36109972/- tax was sought to be evaded. The AO passed order u/s 271(l)(c) as under:-
"In view of this, it is dear that appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income in respect of the addition/disallowance as discussed above and accordingly, it is found to be a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act r.w. Explanation ‘ thereto. Here it is also noted that tax on book profit has not so far been paid by the appellant. It shows non cooperative and recalcitrant attitude of the appellant. Its conduct further shows that its intention to pay the due and correct taxes is not above doubt. Considering the facts of the case and conduct (furnishing of the required information and payment of due taxed) of the appellant, it is found to be a case fit for imposition of penalty at a rate higher than the Fit for Publication ITA No- 1002/Del/2014 Sd/- (AM) Sd/- (JM) Padmini infrastructure Developers India Ltd. minimum amount. ‘
5.3 During the course of assessment proceedings the AO had noted that the appellant had not paid tax under 115JB. On a specific query being raised by the AO the appellant did not give any reasons for non payment of taxes u/s 115JB. Even during appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) had stated that the appellate had not given any details nor any reason for not paying taxes u/s 115JB and had displayed malafide intentions to evade tax and conceal income. The appellant has stated that 115JB was liable only when the company was otherwise not liable to normal tax.
5.4 As per 115JB (1) & (2): "115JB. Special provision for payment of tax by certain companies.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where in the case of an assessee, being a company, the income- tax, payable on the total income as computed under this Act in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2011, is less eighteen per cent, of its book profit, such book profit shall be deemed to be the total income of the assessee and the tax payable by the assessee on such total income shall be the amount of income-Tax. at the rate of eighteen per cent. (2) Every assessee, being a company, shall, for the purposes of this section, prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of Parts U and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of1956): Provided that while preparing the annual accounts including profit and loss account,- the accounting policies ; (f) the accounting standards adopted for preparing such accounts (ii) including profit and loss account; (Hi) the method and rates adopted for calculating the depreciation,..."
5.5 Therefore, from the provisions it is clear that every company has to compute profits as per normal provision of the Act and as per 115JB. Section 80IB (10) is not related to the aspect of 115JB. The appellant has been allowed deduction u/s 80IB(10) by the Ld. CIT(A) from its normal profits. The aspect of computation of profit u/s 115JB is entirely different.
5.6 The AO has therefore only initiated and levied penalty only in respect of the fact that the appellant has not computed profits u/s 115JB and paid tax hereon. If the case of the appellant had not been selected for scrutiny, this fact would not have come to the notice of the department. The explanation given by the appellant for not computing profits as per Fit for Publication ITA No- 1002/Del/2014 Sd/- (AM) Sd/- (JM) Padmini infrastructure Developers India Ltd.
115JB has no merit. The appellant has clearly furnished inaccurate particulars and is not giving a bonafide explanation for doing so. The appellant has not complied with the provisions of law.
In my view the appellant is liable for penalty u/s 271(l)(c) for giving naccurate particulars with a view to concealment of income and for not giving a bonafide explanation.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K. P. Madhusudan vs. CIT (2011) 118 TAXMAN 324 (SC) held that the appellant is by virtue of the notice u/s 271(l)(c) put to notice that if he does not prove, in the circumstances stated in the Explanation, that his failure to return his correct income was not due to fraud or neglect, he shall be not deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars thereof and consequently be liable to the penalty provided by that section. In view of the above, the onus is clearly on the appellant to prove that there was no fraud or neglect in filing correct income, which the appellant has failed to proved.
6.1 There was a deliberate attempt by the appellant to file incorrect return of income. The appellant has failed to substantiate its explanation, failed to prove that its explanation is bonafide, therefore, the penalty is clearly leviable u/s 271(l)(c) and the AO is fully justified in imposing the penalty.
6.2 After distinguishing the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 where Hon'ble Apex court decision was rendered because two views were possible in that case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 191 TAXMAN 179(Delhi), have held:
“It is true that mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of the income fo the assessee, but it cannot be disputed that the claim made by the assessee needs to be bonafide. It is the claim besides being incorrect in law is malafide, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1) would come into play and work to the disadvantage of the assessee. The Court cannot overtook the fact that only a small percentage of the Income Tax Returns are picked up for scrutiny. If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bonafide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act. If we take the view that a claim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee would not be liable to imposition of penalty, even if he was not acting bonafide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a licence to unscrupulous assessees to make wholly untenable and unsustainable claims without there being any basis for making them, in the hope that their return would not be picked up Fit for Publication ITA No- 1002/Del/2014 Sd/- (AM) Sd/- (JM) Padmini infrastructure Developers India Ltd. for scrutiny and they would be assessed on the basis of self Assessment under Section 143(1) of the Act and even if their case is selected for scrutiny, they can get away merely by paying the tax, which in any case, was payable by them. The consequence would be that the persons who make claims of this nature, actuated by a malafide intention to evade tax otherwise payable by them would get away without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have.". 6.3 In view of the above factual and legal position since the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and since the appellant has failed to substantiate its explanation, failed to prove that its explanation is bonafide, therefore, the AO is fully justified in imposing the penalty of Rs.60,77,308/- u/s 271(1 )(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961.
6.4 In the case of K. C. Builders, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:"It is implicit in the word "concealed" that there has been a deliberate act on the part of the assessee." 6.5 There is an intention and desire on the part of the appellant to hide or conceal the income so as to avoid the imposition of tax thereon. The appellant has consciously and fraudulently made the concealment and furnished inaccurate particulars of her income with a view to avoid imposition of tax. 6.6 In the case of CIT vs. Gurbachan Lal 2001 (Delhi). It was observed that Burden on the assessee to prove there is no concealment”. 6.7. In the case of B. A. Balasubramanium & Bros Co. vs CIT 236 ITR 977 (SC). It was observed that for "the assessee to prove there is no concealment". 6.8. In the case of Additional CIT vs. Jeevan Lai Shah 205 ITR 244 (SC), it was observed that “the burden remains on the assessee, unless discharged that failure to return correct income did not arise from fraud on willful neglect on his part". 6.9. In the case of CIT V Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC). It was observed that "finding given in the assessment proceedings is a good evidence". 6.10. The appellant has failed to prove that there was no concealment and that incorrect particulars were not filed. 6.11. The appellant has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of its income with a view to concealment of income. The explanation of the appellant is not bonafide. In view thereof, penalty of Rs.60,77,308/-, imposed u/s 271(l)(c) on concealed income of Rs.3,61,09,972 is confirmed. The ground of appeal is thus ruled against the appellant.
7. As a result, the appeal is dismissed."
(2.2) Aggrieved, the Assessee has filed this appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Fit for Publication ITA No- 1002/Del/2014 Sd/- (AM) Sd/- (JM) Padmini infrastructure Developers India Ltd. (“ITAT”, for short). During the appellate proceedings in ITAT, the Assessee filed a Paper Book of case laws compilation consisting of total 188 pages, containing copies of the following decided cases:
Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs. CIT, (1980) 123 ITR 0457, Supreme Court of India.
Tidewater Marine International Inc. vs. DCIT, (2005) 96 ITD 0406, ITAT Delhi Bench. 3. ACIT vs. Smt. Surinder Kaur, (2009) 18 DTR 0038, ITAT Lucknow Bench. 4. CIT vs. M/s Metal & Chromium Plater (P) Ltd., 97 CCH 0080, High Court of Madras. 5. M/s Neha Home Builders (P) Ltd., dated 22.01.2016, ITAT Delhi Bench. 6. ITO vs. Frigsales (India) Ltd, (2005) 4 SOT 0376, ITAT Mumbai Bench. 7. Tristar Intech (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2015) 43 ITR (Trib) 0279, ITAT Delhi Bench. 8. Sh. Navneet Jhamb vs. ACIT, ITA No. 756/Del/2016, dated 11.07.2016, ITAT Delhi Bench. 9. CIT vs. Dalmia Dyechem Industries Ltd., (2015) 0279 CTR 133, High Court of Bombay. 10. CIT vs. M/s SSA/s Emerald Meadows, SLP No. 23272/2016, dated 05.08.2016, Supreme Court of India. 11. CIT vs. M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows, ITA No. 380/2015, dated 23.11.2015, High Court of Karnataka. 12. Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi, ITA No. 684/2016, dated 13.07.2017, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 13. Aditya Chemicals Ltd. vs. ITO, ITA No. 5006/Del/2013, dated 21.11.2017, ITAT Delhi Bench.
(2.3) In addition, the copies of the following judicial precedents were also filed from assessee’s side.
• Order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Padmini Infrastructure (P) Ltd. in order dated 25/10/2017 for Assessment Year 2006-07,