SARGAM FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3239/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 October 2016AY 2009-103 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 confirmed the penalty levied by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A), finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s reasoned order which relied on a Supreme Court decision.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the assessee agreed to offer additional income of Rs. 22,00,000/- but failed to declare it in the original return. The AO reopened the assessment, and the assessee eventually filed a revised return offering the additional income.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when additional income is declared belatedly after survey proceedings and reopening of assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 133A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Hearing: 13.10.2016Pronounced: 13.10.2016

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 25.3.2015 passed by Ld CIT(A)-14, Mumbai confirming penalty of Rs.6,79,800/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in AY 2009-10.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the notice of hearing was sent by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.

3.

I heard Ld D.R and perused the record. The relevant facts are that the assessee was subjected to survey operations u/s 133A of the Act on 31.7.2008. During the course of survey, excess stock of Rs.20,36,407/- and cash shortage of Rs.1,31,951/- were noticed. Accordingly the assessee agreed to offer a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- as its additional income and also issued cheques towards the tax liability. But the cheques were dishonoured and the assessee also did not declare the amount in the return of income. Hence the AO reopened the assessment u/s 148 and in the return filed in response thereto also, the assessee did not declare additional income of Rs.22.00 lakhs. Subsequently, when the assessing officer asked queries about the additional income, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 28-3-2013 offering the additional income. The AO completed the assessment by accepting the income declared in the revised return of income.

4.

The AO initiated penalty proceedings and in response thereto, the assessee submitted the additional income was offered to buy peace from the department and not to litigate in this matter further. The AO was not convinced with the explanations and hence levied penalty of Rs.6,79,800/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Ltd (2014)(1 SCC 674).

5.

I have gone through the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and I notice that the Ld CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Ltd (supra). Before me, the assessee has not filed any material to show that the order passed by Ld CIT(A) was not in accordance with the law. Hence I do not find any reason to interfere with his order. Accordingly I confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A).

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

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 →