Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘PANAJI’ BENCH, PANAJI-GOA
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
O R D E R
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Panaji in dated 02.07.2018 against the order passed by ITO, Ward-5, Margao u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for A.Y. 2001-02.
The grounds taken by the assessee in the present appeal are reproduced as under:
“i. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the concealment penalty of Rs. 2,60,323/- without appreciating the facts of the case. ii. The appellant craves, leaves to add/alter any other grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR represented the department.
Giovanni John Manuel Vaz A.Y. 2001-12 4. It is noted that this appeal was listed on earlier occasions wherein also none appeared. Since the appeal is of 2018 relating to A.Y. 2001- 02, we are inclined to take up the matter for adjudication, ex-parte qua the assessee with the assistance of ld. Sr. DR.
Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is governed by Portuguese Civil Code and assessed at 50:50 by virtue of section 5A of the Act. Assessee is in the business of hotels, real estates and constructions having eight proprietary concerns for which he maintains separate profit and loss accounts and balance sheets. Return was filed by the assessee on 13.10.2001 reporting a total income of Rs. 2,80,800/-. In the course of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, owing to complexity involved in the accounts maintained by the assessee, the case was referred for special audit u/s 142(2A) of the Act based on which assessment was completed at total communion income of Rs. 1,36,79,351/-. The same was apportioned equally among the spouses u/s 5A at Rs. 65,58,875/- each. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated by the ld. AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the particulars of income.
Aggrieved by the additions, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who allowed certain relief on the basis of remand report submitted by the JCIT, Margao Range, Margao. After the effect of order of ld. CIT(A), the share of assessed income came to Rs. 20,93,990/- for which the assessee preferred an appeal before the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Panaji Bench. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Panaji vide its order dated 17.01.2007 in and ITA No. 5/PNJ/06 allowed certain further relief to the assessee which resulted into share of assessee in the assessed income coming down to Rs. 15,30,115/-. On the additions/disallowances which were sustained after the appeal
Giovanni John Manuel Vaz A.Y. 2001-12 effect, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed for Rs. 2,60,323/- by the ld. AO.
Aggrieved by the penalty so imposed, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee made a submission dated 28.06.2018 for each of the addition and the basis on which penalty was levied. ld. CIT(A) analyzed it on merits and gave his findings in a tabulated form which is reproduced as under:
Giovanni John Manuel Vaz A.Y. 2001-12
Giovanni John Manuel Vaz A.Y. 2001-12
Giovanni John Manuel Vaz A.Y. 2001-12 8.1. On perusal of the above table and the observations made by the ld. AO in his assessment order while dealing with each of the items of the additions on which penalty has been levied, we note that except for item at serial no. 7 for Rs. 1,00,828/-, at serial no. 9 for Rs. 4,120/-, at serial no. 10 for Rs. 7,260/- and at serial no. 11 for Rs. 14,475/-, no further appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) on the respective items. For these four items also, the amount of addition are very small amounts which were sustained after the appellate proceedings.
Giovanni John Manuel Vaz A.Y. 2001-12 8.2. Further, we note that the ld. CIT(A) has objectively dealt with the contentions of the assessee in respect of issue of complexity of accounts raised by the assessee to substantiate his claim that mistakes were committed by him in maintaining correct accounts. On this aspect, the ld. CIT(A) has noted that assessee was assisted by statutory auditor, authorized representative and accountants and thus he had all the resources available to explain his case and comply with the requirements of the law.
8.3. Ld. CIT(A) also noted that after the appellate proceeding, the quantum addition remained in the hands of the assessee was of Rs. 15,30,115/- as against originally assessed at Rs. 65,58,875/- by the ld. AO. Thus, he noted that ld. AO has levied penalties on the final amounts only which remained as confirmed/sustained in the hands of the assessee and not on the initial additions which were made in the assessment. Accordingly, the penalty so imposed is on all those amounts for which either the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the assessment has confirmed the additions or the assessee himself has not preferred any appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) in respect of the additions.
8.4. Ld. CIT(A) thus placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan vs CIT (2001) 118 Taxman 324 (SC) and the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Shanti Ramanand Sagar vs CIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 72 (Bombay) and in the case of Palkhi Investments & Trading Co. (P) Ltd. vs ITO (2016) 71 taxmann.com 322 (Bombay), confirmed the penalty imposed by the ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee
Considering the detailed, meritorious and fact based findings given by the ld. CIT(A) after analyzing the submission filed by the Giovanni John Manuel Vaz A.Y. 2001-12 assessee, more particularly where the assessee himself has not preferred any appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) on certain additions which were confirmed at the First Appellate Stage, we do not find any reason for the interference in the findings so given by the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,60,323/- levied by the ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of appeal by the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.