TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1 The assessee, a company engaged in management and maintenance of real estate, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 27.10.2007 declaring loss of Rs. 1,00,40,853/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and the case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.11.2009, wherein the assessee's loss was determined at Rs. 33,51,300/-, inter alia, in view of the following additions/disallowances were made: - i) Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) Rs. 61,72,064/- ii) Addition on account of Rent receipts Rs. 4,34,123/- Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were simultaneously initiated in the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs. 22,23,643/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order levying penalty of Rs. 22,23,643/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2007-08 vide order dated 21.05.2010, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-19, Mumbai. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal vide the impugned order dated 15.06.2011, but directed that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was to be levied on the disallowance of Rs. 61,72,064/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and only on Rs. 1,49,500/- in respect of the addition on account of rent receipt. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A)-19, Mumbai dated 15.06.2011, the assessee has preferred this a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as included on receiving the amount in the next A.Y. i.e. immediate to the current A.Y. was already included in the rent receipts. (2) The learned CIT(A) ought to have verified the bonafide explanation before levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) On the facts and circumstances Your Appellant prays that the penalty levied on a/c. Of the alleged rent receipt may be cancelled. (III) Your Appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the above grounds of appeal." 4. This appeal was fixed for hearing on a number of occasions, but none was present for the assessee on any of the dates when the appeal/ case was called. On the dates when the Bench did not function, the case was adjourned by display of the next date of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and consultants, the appellant failed to claim appropriate disallowable amount under the provisions of s. 40(a)(1a). It was further pointed out that the bonafides of the appellant are clear from the fact that appellant had themselves added back a sum of Rs. 11,05,793/- on account of TDS not deducted and paid. It was further clarified before the A.O. that the assessee had already calculated TDS amount of Rs. 11,39,300/- and interest of Rs. 4,23,203/- and the same was paid on 24.12.2009. Hence it was requested that penalty may not be imposed since assessee was facing genuine difficulties due to lack of competent staff and that there was no intention to hide anything. As regard addition of Rs. 4,34,1 23/- being Rent receipt, it is submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to the extent of Rs. 1,49,500/- only has been confirmed and that additions of Rs. 41,323/- and Rs. 2,43,600/- have been deleted since the same were seen booked in the accounts. As regard receipts of Rs. 1,49,500/- it is submitted that the same were received only in the subsequent year and hence not included with the current rent receipts. It is contended that penalty is not imposable since the assessee had disclosed all the facts for computation of income. It is also added that the explanation as offered has not been found to be bogus or malafide and that it cannot be stated that the details supplied in the Return are not accurate or not according to truth, or erroneous. 7. I have considered the facts of the case and the legal submis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e company had been disallowed under the law by rejecting a probable view, but a case where there has been clear disregard of the unambiguous provisions of Law. This is not a case where two views are possible on a provision of Law. The point made by the A.O. is also taken not of that only after enquiries made, details regarding TDS were supplied by the appellant. It is also not the case that the appellant was under a belief that no tax was deductible from such payments. It is also held that the decision in Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 cited by it will not come to its rescue since this is not a case in which two views of a claim made are possible. The facts of the present case are distinguishable. On the said facts and points o....