SEWA STEEL PVT. LTD.,BHIWADI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 952/JPR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 October 2022AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to proceed ex-parte and, based on the available documents and the Revenue's arguments, upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The penalty was confirmed on the grounds of concealment of income.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of Rs. 1,02,293/- on account of investment subsidy and a penalty of Rs. 74,603/-. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the confirmation of a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income, which was sustained by the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR

Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 952/JP/2019

Hearing: 08/09/2022

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A), Alwar dated 14-05-2019 for the assessment year 2013-14 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the order of the AO on addition of Rs.1,02,293/- sustained on account of investment subsidy treating it as employment generation subsidy u/s 250 in quantum.

2. That the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not adjudication on penalty attributable on the estimate 2.1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out for hearing. However, the Bench decided to proceed in the matter as per the documents available on record and heard the arguments of the ld. DR, ex-parte. 2.2 The Bench noted in this case that the solitary issue raised is against the imposition of penalty of Rs.74,603/- u/s 271(1)© of the Act which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) by observing as under:- ‘’5.3 I have gone through the penalty order as well as submissions made by the appellant. The quantum proceedings has been decided and the AO has imposed penalty u/s 271(1) (c ) of the Act on the sustained part of the addition made on the ground of employment generation subsidy and investment subsidy. The appellant has also not gone into further appeal. I have considered the submission made by the appellant. In my considered view, the AO is justified in imposing penalty of Rs.74,603/- u/s 271(1)( c ) of the Act on concealment of particulars of income. The appellant’s ground of appeal on the issue is dismissed.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.3 The Bench heard the ld. DR and considered the documents made available by the assessee concerning the issue in question. In this case, it is noted that the assessee was provided numerous opportunities to contest its case but no controverting reply from the side of the assessee was received. In this view of the 3 M/S SEWA STEELS PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR matter, the Bench has no other alternative except to sustain the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed 3.0 Order pronounced in the open court on 18/10/2022.

Sd/- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (Sandeep Gosain) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 18 /10/2022 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- M/s. Sewa Steel Pvt. Ltd. Bhiwadi 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ACIT, Circle-2, Alwar 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 952/JP/2019) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →