2014 (4) TMI 340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the business of construction of flats and independent houses. For the assessment year under the dispute, the assessee had filed its return of income on 15/10/2010 declaring total income of Rs. 75,76,522/- under the normal provisions and book profit of Rs. 5,73,42,471/- under section 115JB. The tax liability as per the assessee's own computation is Rs. 1,05,24,981/-. After adjusting the TDS of Rs. 96,513/-, the net tax payable by the assessee as per its computation is Rs. 1,04,28,468/-. However, the assessee filed its return of income without paying the aforesaid admitted tax liability. The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued a notice u/s 221(1) of the IT Act, calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why penalty should not be impos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, was unable to do so due to poor market conditions. Thus, it was submitted that failure to pay admitted tax was not wilful but was due to genuine financial hardships. It was, therefore, contended that penalty should not have been levied. In support of such contention, the assessee relied upon certain judicial precedents. 5. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, deleted the penalty by holding as under: "5. I have considered the facts and submissions in the penalty order and of the AR. The fact that the real estate market had been adversely and severely affected by the events in the late 2009 is well known. The appellant being in the real estate market was also similarly affected as is born out by the facts rel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hembara Park Estats Ltd., the assessee had failed to pay advance tax due to unfavourable financial position. The ITAT held that paucity of funds and financial stringency could be considered good and sufficient reason for not paying the tax and that penalty u/s 221 could not be levied. 9. The situation is similar in the case of the appellant. The appellant was prevented by financial difficulties from making payment of admitted tax. The failure to pay the tax was not wilful and deliberate but caused by genuine difficulty. I, therefore, hold that the levy of penalty was not justified and allow the appeal." 6. We have heard the parties and perused the orders of the authorities as well as other materials on record. There is no dispute to t....