Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C. SHARMA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)
O R D E R
PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-10, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).
In the present case, the assessee had not filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO on the basis of findings recorded in the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 78,21,414/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143 (3) read with section 147 of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 1,14,83,930/-. Accordingly penalty proceeding was initiated Assessment Year: 2009-10 u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following effective ground:-
1. “The Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 22,81,950/- u/s 271
(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the facts and submission of the Appellant. It is submitted that appellant has not furnished any inaccurate particulars and penalty has been levied by the learned assessing officer on addition made in the assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the same as concealed Income. It is to note that appellant has claimed cost on the basis of Valuation Report of Regd. Valuer and therefore, considering the Apex Court’s decision in case of Dilip N Shroff, such penalty levied should be cancelled. Accordingly, it is prayed to your honour to delete the penalty levied by the learned assessing officer for the year under consideration.”
The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing the present appeal. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not file the present appeal within the limitation period for the reason that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) had been misplaced by the concerned staff. Since, the delay is not intentional or due to inaction on the part of the assessee, the same may be condoned and the assessee may be allowed to argue the case on merits. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the submission made by the Ld. counsel on the ground that the assessee has failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal. Assessment Year: 2009-10