2016 (4) TMI 859

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sued on 15.12.2009, in response to which, Shri S.V. Natarajan, one of the AOPs appeared on 18.01.2010 and requested to treat the return already filed on 15.09.2009 as proper compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was also issued on 14.10.2010. 3. A survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises of M/s. Raj & Co. at 34, Kalyani Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Udumalpet on 12.01.2007 in which Shri S.V. Natarajan [one of the assessee AOPs] is the Managing Director. During the course of survey, some diaries containing noting by Shri S.V. Natarajan for having let out JCB on hire and vouchers relating to receipts of JCB hire charges for the months of November 2006 and December 2006, an expenditure statement for the respective months, etc. were inter alia found and impounded. A sworn statement was also recorded from Shri S. V. Natarajan based on the findings in the above dairies and documents. In the statement, Shri S.V. Natarajan had admitted inter alia that the business of letting JCB was done along with 2 others in the name and style of M/s Om Muruga Earth Movers. However, as the firm was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... However, the assessee appeared for the hearing on 13.06.2011 and simply requested to drop the penalty proceedings without offering any explanation or written submission and the assessee was also asked to do so. Inspite of the above, the assessee has not furnished any explanation/submission. Therefore, the Assessing Officer levied penalty @ 200% of tax sought to be evaded. Similarly, for the assessment year 2007-08 also the Assessing Officer levied penalty @ 200%. 6. The assessee carried the matters in appeal for both the assessment years. After considering the submission and facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the penalty to 100% of the tax payable for both the assessment years. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years. 8. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, by relying on the grounds of appeal, submitted that the Assessing Officer has determined the business income on the basis of estimates and therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not warranted. 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 10. We have heard....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted at the time of survey i.e., Rs..7,50,000/- per annum was adopted in the assessment. After allowing depreciation @ 15%, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 11. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act was served on the assessee on 31.12.2010. The assessee has not filed any reply to the penalty notice, but appeared on 13.06.2011 and simply requested to drop the penalty proceedings, without offering any explanation. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act @ 200% and on appeal, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the penalty @ 100%. 12. In this case, though the assessee was engaged in the JCB hire business, no return of income was filed until a survey was conducted in the business premises of M/s. Raj & Co. on 12.01.2007 in which Shri S.V. Natarajan [one of the assessee AOPs] is the Managing Director. When some diaries containing noting by Shri S.V. Natarajan for having let out JCB on hire and vouchers relating to receipts of JCB hire charges for the months of November 2006 and December 2006, an expenditure statement for the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 is dismissed. 14. For the assessment year 2007-08, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the return of income has been filed in time and pleaded to delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration. 15. The assessee was engaged in the JCB hire business and no return of income was filed until a survey was conducted under section 133A of the Act in the business premises of M/s. Raj & Co. on 12.01.2007 in which Shri S.V. Natarajan [one of the assessee AOPs] is the Managing Director. Since this is a survey related case, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 15.12.2009. Shri S.V. Natarajan, one of the AOPs appeared on 18.01.2010 and requested to treat the return filed on 15.09.2009 as proper compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 14.10.2010. In the return of income, the assessee has admitted an income of Rs..1,46,232/-, whereas, on perusal of the Profit and Loss account, at the time of scrutiny, the Assessing Officer found that the as....