TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalty orders for concealment of income upheld for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08</h1> <h3>M/s Trishul Enterprises Versus ACIT, Circle- (1), Thane</h3> M/s Trishul Enterprises Versus ACIT, Circle- (1), Thane - TMI Issues Involved:Appeals against penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Penalty Initiation Clarity- The AO initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.- Assessee argued that the penalty initiation lacked clarity on the specific grounds.- Ld. AR cited a Gujarat High Court decision for support.- Ld. DR contended that the penalty was clearly initiated for concealment of income.- The Tribunal found that the AO clearly mentioned the penalty initiation for concealment of income.- The contention regarding lack of clarity in penalty initiation was dismissed.Issue 2: Concealment of Income- Survey under section 133A revealed unaccounted cash expenditure by the assessee.- Addition of Rs. 47,000 made by AO for unexplained expenditure not reflected in books.- Assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation during assessment.- AO and CIT(A) held that the assessee concealed income by not disclosing the expenditure.- Assessee contended no intention to hide income, but the explanation was deemed unsatisfactory.- Tribunal found the explanation inadequate and upheld the penalty for concealment of income.Issue 3: Legal Precedents- Assessee cited a Gujarat High Court decision regarding penalty deletion for unclear grounds.- Tribunal noted a jurisdictional High Court decision emphasizing the importance of show cause opportunity.- The Tribunal found the Gujarat High Court decision not applicable due to clear recording of concealment by the AO.- The Tribunal upheld the jurisdictional High Court's decision as a binding precedent.Conclusion:- Appeals for both AYs were dismissed due to the concealment of income and the clarity in penalty initiation for the specified grounds.- The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for both AYs based on the findings of the AO and CIT(A).- Legal precedents were considered, and the Tribunal followed the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court.- The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the assessee.
TaxTMI 