AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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. b) The assessee has fully co-operated with the assessment proceedings. c) The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 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 opportunity of being heard the bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 27,02,126/- was added to the income of the assessee. Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HC 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 learned representative of the parties and perused the record carefully, it came into the notice that the Assessing Officer in the assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 made arrangement with the abovementioned parties who give the bills against the said purchases. The said parties are paid by cheque, the cash received back f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 received from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai about the four firms engaged in Hawala entries. The name of the four firms were Ganesh Enterprises, Amar Enterprises, Saradge Enterprises....