TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 8,10,638/- u/s.271(1)(c) being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded without giving proper opportunity to the appellant. 2. Your appellant prays that the appeal be heard on merits and proper opportunity may be granted to the appellant to represent the case. Ground II 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 8,10,638/- u/s.271(1)(c) being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that:- a) The assessee has suo moto admitted the disallowance to buy peace to concentrate on business activities.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny was having a manufacturing unit at Baddi in Himachal Pradesh, the profit of which was claimed as deduction u/s.80IC of the Act. Report in form 10CCB was filed in support of the claim u/s.80IC of the Act. It was the second year of assessee's claim u/s.80IC of the Act, having commenced operation in Baddi on 06.08.2008. During the assessment an information was received from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai about the four firms engaged in Hawala entries. The name of the four firms are hereby mentioned below:- S. No. Name of the Parties Amount 1 Ganesh Enterprises 57,693/- 2 Amar Enterprises 9,58,620/- 3 Saradge Enterprises 7,97,063/- 4 Anshu Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. 8,88,750/- Thereafter, by giving an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reme Court of India in CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 0009 and decided Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (2013) 86 CCH 0043 AIIHC in case title as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Jaiswal and decided by Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Tribunal (2013) 38 CCH 0017 in ITA No.1641/Mum/2010 and 7219 to 7221/M/2011 in case titled as Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax dated 11.12.2013. However, on the other and the learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the finding of the CIT(A) in question and placed reliance upon the law settled in [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. With due regard to the contentions raised by the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alid. However in the case of the assessee, the purchases are made and the same are paid for through the banking channels. Since the items purchased are miscellaneous nature and used mainly in installations the came can not be completely co-related. We submit that the said expenses may kindly be allowed. 2. With regard to other parties we submit that the assessee does installation work in various places on the site of the client. The site materials are procure by the office, but during the installation balance materials like cables, are purchased locally by the site incharge. Proper bills are not collected by the site incharge. In many cases the clients demands to show the bill for purchases. To counter this issues the assessee has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdingly. Now it is to be seen whether the penalty is liable to be leviable in the said circumstances or not. The law relied by the assessee i.e. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 0009 speaks about the facts that the assessee surrender the additional income by way of revised return after the persistent query by the Assessing Officer. Once the revised return have been regularized by the revenue the explanation of the assessee was that he has declared the additional income to buy peace and to come out of vexed litigation could be treated as bonafide thus the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) was not leviable. Whereas in the instant case the facts are totally different. During the assessment an information was r....