Sbi Dfhi Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed
ITA 7433/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2006-07
Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7433/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Sbi Dfhi Limited Asst. Cit, Range 2(1), बनाम/ 23, 3Rd Floor, Voltas House, J. N. Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Heradia Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 0532 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Bhavin Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 15.10.2013, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07 Vide Order Dated 23.11.2010. 2 Sbi Dfhi Limited Vs. Asst. Cit 2. The Sole Issue, Agitated Per Four Grounds By The Assessee, As Under, Is The Validity Or Otherwise In Law Of The Levy Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Assessee’S Claim For Unabsorbed Deposition (For Rs.41,68,938/-) In The Computation Of Its’ Book Profit U/S. 115 Jb Of The Act, At Rs. 4 Lacs, I.E., At A Little Over 100% Of The Tax Sought To Be Evaded Thereon: ‘1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(L)(C) Of The Act By The Learned Assessing Officer.
For Appellant: Shri Bhavin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)
…iew to qualify as a possible one has to be reasonable, and have its’ basis in the language of the provision, if not in its rationale as well. Speaking in the context of addition for an unexplained credit u/s. 68, the apex court in CIT vs. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) clarified that the expression ‘the assessee offers no explanation’ therein (which corresponds to the language of clause (A) of Explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c), which speaks of the assessee failing to furnish any explanation) means that where the assessee offers no proper, reasonable or acceptable explanation as regards the sums found c…
