HANIL ERA TEXTILES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JASON P. BOAZ , A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-12, Mumbai dated 13.09.2012 for A.Y. 2006-07 in respect of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under: - 2.1 The assessee, a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of textiles, filed its return of income for A.Y.

2.2 In the order of assessment dated 22.12.2008 for A.Y. 2006-07, Assessing Officer (‘AO’) simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with respect to the disallowance of `55,43,091/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act; withdrawal/disallowance of deduction under section 10B(1) of the Act amounting to `8,69,14,631/- and disallowance of `2,50,000/- under section 94(7) of the Act. Subsequent to the order of the CIT(A)-12, Mumbai dated 06.11.2009, the AO took up the penalty proceedings and after considering assessee’s submission in this regard, proceed to levy the minimum penalty of `2,60,74,389/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on assessee for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

2.3 On appeal the learned CIT(A)-12, Mumbai allowed partial relief to assessee in the impugned order dated 13.09.2012. The learned CIT(A) held as under: - i. She deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by AO on account of disallowance of `55,43,091/- made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act;

M/s. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. ii. The learned CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of withdrawal/disallowance of deduction under section 10B(1) of the Act amounting to `8,69,14,631/- , and iii. The learned CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of the disallowance under section 94(7) of the Act amounting to `2,50,000/-.

3.1 Assessee has raised the following grounds before us: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-12, Mumbai erred in confirming the Penalty by holding that the appellants had furnished inaccurate particulars of their income.

M/s. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-12, Mumbai erred in confirming the Penalty for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the appellants in respect of disallowance 94(7) of the Act.” 3.2 After considering the submissions put forth by the learned D.R. supporting the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and carefully perusing the findings therein, we find that assessee has been unable to rebut the findings of the learned CIT(A) in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the case on hand for A.Y. 2006-07 in respect of both the issues listed hereunder: - i. The confirmation of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of withdrawal/disallowance of deduction under section 10B(1) of the Act amounting to `8,69,14,631/-, and ii. The confirmation of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance under section 94(7) of the Act amounting to `2,50,000/-. In the absence of any such explanation, we do not find any reason to deviate from or interfere in the findings rendered by the learned CIT(A) and accordingly confirm the same.

M/s. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :