Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JASON P. BOAZ (AM) & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JM)
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)- 8, Mumbai dt. 25/03/2013 confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,26,243/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘ the Act’) for Asst. year 2001-02.
In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:-
1) The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)(hereinafter referred as “CIT(A)” has erred in confirming the order of learned assessing officer (hereinafter referred as “A.O.”) levying penalty of Rs. 10,26,243/- on the addition made of Rs. 25,94,800/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act,
1961. It is submitted that such credits were carried forward from earlier year i.e. A.Y. 2000-2001 and the earlier assessment has already been completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore question of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unjustified.
2) Your appellant craves to add, alter, or amend any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.
Inspite of many opportunities being afforded to the assessee none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On the occasions on which the Bench did not function, the case hearing were adjourned through display on the notice board. Even when notice was issued to the assessee by RPAD, the same has retuned unserved. Even today i.e. 17/02/2016 when the case was called none was present on behalf of the assessee, but however the Ld. DR was present for Revenue. In these circumstances, it appears that the assessee was not serious in pursuing this appeal and therefore this appeal is being disposed off with the assistance of the Ld. DR for revenue and the material on record.
3.1 The Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order for Asst. year 2001-02, has upheld the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,26,243/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the undisclosed income of Rs. 24,95,000/- holding as under the paras 2.3(a) and 2.3(b) thereof:-
2.3(a) I have carefully considered the facts of the case. The balance sheet of the appellant is showing opening balance of reserve and surplus at Rs. Nil and closing balance at Rs. 24,95,000/-. The relevant schedule of Reserve and Surplus is Schedule-II in which the amount of Rs. 24,95,000/- has been shown as share premium amount received during the year. Thus, it was fact on record that this share premium amount was received by the appellant during the year only. In the facts and circumstances, the appellant was required to prove the nature and source of such amount received non-cooperative. However, after repeated request, the appellant furnish details that the amounts were received from 4 companies. Perusal of the balance sheet of those companies revealed that no such investment was made by them as share application money in appellant company. In the facts and circumstances, the appellant during assessment proceedings, failed to prove the genuineness and source of receipt of share premium amount received during the year. In the facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has correctly held that the appellant had filed inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealed the particulars of income. Even during the appellate proceedings, the appellant could not prove the genuineness of the transactions receiving share application money during the year.
2.3(b) As per the provisions of section 271(1) (c) of the Act, the penalty is leviable if the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of such income. In the case under consideration, the facts have proved that the appellant concealed the particulars of income leading to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The explanation furnished by the appellant during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings were neither bona-fide nor satisfactory. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Thus, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is upheld.
After carefully considering the submissions of the Ld. DR for revenue, the finding of the CIT(A) in the impugned order(supra) and the material on record, we find that the assessee has been unable place on record material evidence to controvert the findings of the authorities below. In the absence of any such evidence to controvert the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), we do not find any reason to deviate from or interfere with the findings as recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly confirm his order upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 10,26,243/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for Asst. year 2001-02 in the case on hand.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Asst. year 2001-02 is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th February, 2016