M/S WHITE CLIFF TEA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

आदेश /O R D E R

PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:-

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kolkata dated 03.07.2014. Assessment was framed by ACIT, Circle-4, Kolkata u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 19.12.2008 for assessment year 2006-07. The penalty levied by Assessing Officer u/s271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 30.06.2009. Mrs. Divya Agarwalla, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of assessee and Shri Sallong Yadon, Ld. Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue.

A.Y. 2006-07 M/s White Cliff Tea Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Cir-4 Page 2 2. The only effective issue raised by assessee in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of ₹9,27,047/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for which assessee has raised following grounds:- “

1. The orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, unreasoned, erroneous, invalid and bad in law.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and in that view, in dismissing the appeal.

3. Without any prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine and not on merits.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.9,27,047/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 on the alleged undisclosed income of Rs.32,71,858/-.

5. The appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.”

3. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is a Private Limited Company deriving its income from business. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO observed that total receipt as per ITS is ₹2,68,97,134/- whereas assessee has disclosed receipt of ₹2,36,25,276/- only. As a result, AO observed a difference of ₹32,71,858/- which was added to the total income of assessee vide his assessment order dated 19.12.2008. The AO in his assessment order initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 30.06.2009. At the outset, it was observed that assessee against the aforesaid quantum addition preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by AO vide his order dated 29.12.2014 in appeal No.225/CIT(A)-2/06-07/14-15 a copy of said order is placed on record.

4. At the time of hearing Ld. AR submitted that against the aforesaid deletion of quantum addition by Ld. CIT(A) the Department has not preferred any appeal to higher forum. In rejoinder, Ld. DR has not brought anything on record contrary to the argument placed by Ld. AR before us and relied on the order of AO.