2014 (2) TMI 1251

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dt. 23.3.2006 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, on perusing the balance sheet of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that under the head ' current liability', the assessee has shown advances of Rs. 1,95,53,644/- against flats. On further verification, the AO noticed that the assessee has shown advances from Mangla International Pvt. Ltd., Marve Beach Realtors Pvt. Ltd and from Shub Mangal Finvest Pvt. Ltd. On further verification, the AO noticed that the assessee is a registered shareholder in all these three companies having beneficial ownership of shares of 92.5% in Mangla ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The submissions of the assessee did not find any favour and the AO levied minimum penalty of Rs. 5,90,158/-. 6. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 7. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly contended that no penalty can be levied on notional income and the additions being made u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act treating the advances from three companies as deemed dividend that being a notional income, no penalty is leviable. In support, the Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in ITA No. 2539/Mum/2011. 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supporting th....