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>ITAT Upholds Penalties for Corporate Entity's Failure to Substantiate Claims</h1> <h3>Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-8 (1) New Delhi.</h3> Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-8 (1) New Delhi. - TMI Issues:1. Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.Analysis:1. For the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee, a corporate entity engaged in trading, claimed agricultural income and swap charges in its return. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the agricultural income and the entire claim of swap charges. The penalty was imposed under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims. Despite contesting initially, the assessee later withdrew its appeals, indicating a lack of merit in its case. The ITAT upheld the penalty, as the assessee did not present any valid defense or evidence to refute the charges.2. Concerning the assessment year 2009-10, the assessee declared a loss and claimed agricultural income and depreciation on land. The Assessing Officer disallowed part of the agricultural income and the depreciation claim. The penalty was imposed under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ITAT applied its decision from the previous year regarding the agricultural income penalty. Regarding the penalty on the depreciation claim, the ITAT upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine if the deduction was claimed in the return of income before imposing a penalty. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed both appeals and upheld the penalties imposed by the tax authorities.3. The ITAT noted the absence of the assessee during the hearings and the lack of interest shown in defending the appeals. The ITAT proceeded ex parte based on the submissions of the Departmental Representative and the available records. The ITAT emphasized the importance of providing evidence and a strong defense to contest penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT's decision was based on the facts, evidence, and legal provisions, ultimately upholding the penalties imposed by the tax authorities for both assessment years.
TaxTMI 