M/S J.K. TRANSPORT & CONSTR. CO.,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 168/RJT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 June 2022AY 2004-053 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee could not justify the shortfall in interest income even after multiple opportunities, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was justified. The order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty was found to be without infirmity.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared less interest income than what was reflected in the TDS chart. Despite opportunities, the assessee failed to explain the difference of ₹7,90,069/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition on this difference.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the assessee fails to explain the difference in declared interest income despite opportunities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2004-05, arises from order of the CIT(A)-1, Rajkot dated 19-02-2018, in Appeal No.-I/Rjt/0220/15-16, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

Page No 2 M/s. J.K. Transport & Constr. Co. vs. Dy. CIT

1.

“1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot erred in confirming imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 2,60,720/- levied by the assessing officer, on addition of interest income of Rs. 7,90,069/-.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal.”

3. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that this is an appeal against order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The quantum proceedings have been decided against the assessee post directions of ITAT and on that basis Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, the AO observed that as per TDS deduction chart, the assessee had earned interest income of ₹ 20, 99, 502/-, however it had declared interest income of ₹ 13, 09, 433/-only. The AO made addition of ₹ 7, 90, 690/-on account of this difference in the assessment order. The assessee challenged this disallowance before Ld. CIT(Appeals) who directed the AO to verify the issue and grant relief to the assessee. The assessee carried the matter to the ITAT to restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable and fair opportunity to the assessee. During the assessment proceedings for giving effect to the directions of the ITAT, the assessee could not justify in the short credit of interest received and accordingly the assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 7, 90, 069/-. The assessee again carried the matter to Ld. CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the said addition vide order dated 08-01-2014. On these facts, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Page No 3 M/s. J.K. Transport & Constr. Co. vs. Dy. CIT

4.

We have heard the contentions of the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. In our considered view, despite several opportunities having being given to the assessee, he was unable to explain/reconcile the difference of ₹ 7,90,069/- in the interest shortfall. Therefore, in the instant facts, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, and accordingly we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the penalty imposed by the AO. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29-06-2022

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 →