TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 824
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst this order vide appeal No.CAB/III-129/2000-01 dated 08.12.2000. The assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from the then CIT, Baroda, that the assessee has made VDIS declaration for Rs.68,58,000/- for the A.Y. 1997-98 showing net profit as per the P&L A/c. The assessee has failed to pay due taxes and therefore lost the immunity granted under VDIS 1997. On the basis of directions contained in this letter to reopen the assessment the case was reopened and order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 was passed on 07.03.2003 and total income was assessed at Rs.68,58,000/-. Out of this assessed income Rs.62,48,150/- was added on protective basis and Rs.6,09,850/- was assessed on substantive basis. The income assessed on protective basis was assessed substantively in the assessee's case for A.Y. 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The assessee again went to the appeal and ld. CIT(A) vide his order No.CAB/VI-256/03-04 dated 09.02.2004 deleted the addition made on protective basis and income assessed on substantive basis was confirmed. The protective addition was deleted as the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and substantive assessment of the above referred income in A.Y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ences is solely rest with the assessee. Assessed not only failed to discharge the onus caste upon it did it with the intention of doing it." The A.O. gave reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in all the years, which was considered by the A.O. and he has held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of expenses claimed of Rs.39,75,044/- without any documentary evidence. The assessee's contention was that Rs.18 lacs had been paid to various ULC authority illegal expenditure not allowed under Explanation 1 of Section 37(1) of the IT Act. The assessee was aware that these expenses are not liable even then he had claimed the expenses without any supporting evidence. The ld. A.O. relied upon in case of B.A. Balasubramaniyam Bros. & Co. vs. CIT 1999 (236) ITR 997 SC, wherein it was held that there is difference between the returned and assessed income there is inference of conealment as a rule of law. The responsibilities for rebutting such inference is squarely on the assessee. In absence of any explanation by itself will merit penalty. The assessee did not have any supporting evidence for claiming of those expenses. Therefore, on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deleting the protective addition made of Rs.62,48,150, has held that the original income assessed vide order dated 31.3.2000 will remain unchanged. (iii) The quantum appeals have been decided by the CIT(A) Baroda wherein disallowance of claim has been upheld on the finding that such claim was not allowable u/s.37 as well as liability of incurring such expenses was not of appellant. The expenses incurred were prior to insertion of Explanation to section 37 on the assessee while the onus to disprove what is climed by the assessee is on the Revenue and merely by rejecting the assessee's explanation and without discharging the onus of the Revenue, penalty cannot be levied or sustained. In the case of CIT Vs Ved Prakash (2004) 141 Taxman 377 (P & H) has observed that once entire amount stood assessed, there was no scope for issue of a fresh notice u/s 148 to assess the same income once again. Penalty proceedings during the course of subsequent reassessment proceedings could only be initiated if the AO had discovered any undisclosed income over and above the income which had already been assessed in original assessment proceedings. The levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d argued that there was a dispute between the land owner and assessee and without incurring this expenditure, this transaction can not be materialized. He further has drawn our attention on page nos. 85, 88, 90 & 91 and argued that the statement of Shri Kishanlal M. Parikeh recorded u/s. 131 of the IT Act on 20.11.1995 and all the details of cash as well as cheques payments had been mentioned in statement and it is admitted that Rs.18 lacs were incurred in the name of Gandihnagar expenses. Rs.14 lacs cash was given to land owners and other brothers and Rs.7 lacs to Thakkar brothers for settlement against the sale of Mujmahuda for sale consideration of Rs.90 lacs. The assessee had paid Rs. 47.5 lacs to Pathan family out of Rs.90 lacs. The ld. Counsel argued that these are expenses incurred in business expediency. Therefore, penalty imposes u/s. 271(1)(c) may be deleted. Alternatively he has also argued that penalty imposed @ 125% should be restricted to 100%. In rejoinder, ld. Sr. D.R. again objected on the ground that expenses were incurred in the year 1994 it should be claimed on the basis of mercantile system of accounting in the relevant year not the year under consideration. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey taken in various land transaction. Even he did not disclose after admission of additional income before the A.O. in regular return which was relevant to A.Y. 96-97 but filed VDIS before the Commissioner, which was rejected on the basis of not paying tax. The assessee filed regular return on 31.03.1999 for A.Y. 97-98, 31.03.2000 for 98-99 & 31.03.2001 for A.Y 99-00 and claimed these expenses against the income without any supporting evidence before the A.O., which was rejected and disallowed by the A.O. and found inadmissible expenditure illegal as per Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the IT Act, which has been confirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench. The ld. CIT(A)'s findings were not found justified that this profit from the sale of land is voluntary, ITAT has reversed the order of the CIT(A). The assessee did not discharge its onus to substantiate his claim bonafide. The A.O. accepted the income and also disallowed the expenses as per Section 37, which was claimed by the appellant illegally as well as without support of evidence. Recently, Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Sharma Alloys (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (OSD) [2013] 357 ITR 379 (Mad), held as under: "The decision of the ....