PEST KILLER (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), MUMBAI

order dated 28/03/2016 of the Ld.CIT(A)-38, Mumbai the Assessee has filed the present appeal.The Assessee-firm,engaged in the business of pest control and house-keeping, filed return of income on 15.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.1.66 lakhs.The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment, u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 25.3.2013, determining its income at Rs.11.25 lakhs.

2.During the assessment proceeding, the AO observed the Assessee had offered an income of Rs.72.87 lakhs as against the income receipt of Rs.82.46 lakhs as reported in ITS details. He initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response to the notice issued to him u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessee filed its reply on 2.8.2013. After considering the same, the AO invoked provisions of Explana - tion 1 to Section 271(1)(c) and levied a penalty of Rs.2.96 lakhs.

3.Aggrieved by order of AO, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA)and made elaborate submissions.After considering available material, the FAA held the Assessee had not reconciled the difference between the gross receipt as per the TDS certificates and the gross receipts shown in the P&L account,that the stand taken by the Assessee was not supported by any evidence, that it had accepted the quantum additions and had not agitated the issue before the appellate authorities,that it was not able to offer any acceptable explanation in respect of the difference in the receipts,that it had offered to surrender the disputed amount after the same was detected by the AO during the assessment proceedings,that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, that the AO had rightly invoked the provisions of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act., that the case of the Assessee would not fall under the category of a genuine mistake. Referring to the matter of MAK DATA P.Ltd (350 ITR 593) of Hon’ble Supreme Court,the FAA confirmed penalty levied by the AO.

4.As stated earlier none appeared before us on behalf of the Assessee ,nor any adjournment letter was filed. On 12.4.2017, on request of the authorized representative of the Assessee the matter was adjourned to be heard today. We are compelled to decide the matter on the basis of available material.

5.We find the Assessee had not agitated quantum additions, that the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for filing of inaccurate particulars of income, that the FAA had confirmed his order. Nothing has been brought on record to justify the reversal of the order of the FAA.So, confirming the order of the FAA,we decide effective ground of appeal against the Assessee.