2017 (8) TMI 415

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me of Rs. 22.88 lakhs.The AO completed the assessment on 22/12/2010,u/s.143 (3) of the Act,deter mining the its income at Rs. 89.66 lakhs. ITA/6457/Mum/2014. 2. Effective ground of appeal, raised by the assessee, is about confirming the penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) (1) (c) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO directed the assessee to furnish the details of Work-in-Progress (WIP) for the project from the days of inception.After considering the submission of the assessee, the AO held that the assessee had inflated the work in progress as on 31/03/2004 by an amount of Rs. 29.25 lakhs. Accordingly, he reduced the said amount and determined the value of WIP at Rs. 91.50 lakhs. The assessee did not file any appeal against the orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing officer on the basis of order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharti Shipyard Ltd. 2.4. While completing the assessment, the AO initiated p enalty u/s.271 (1) (c) and accordingly notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271 (1) (c) was issued. As per t he AO the assessee did not submit any explanation to the show cause notice for imposing p enalty. Accordingly,he held that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Referring to the Explanation 1 to the section 271 (1) (c), he held that assessee had rendered itself liable for penalty.He levied a penalty of Rs. 67.03 lakhs for furnishing inaccurate particular s of income for the year under consideration. 2.5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee pref erred an appeal be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t he assessee had filed confirmation letter and bank statement as additional evidences during the appellate proceedings that it had deducted tax at source, that reconciliation statement was filed, that if reconciliation details were perused it would be clear that there was nounreconciled amount.He referred to page -28 of the PB i.e. the balance sheet for the year under consideration where the amount was shown as due fro m the party and further argued that assessee had made a bonafide claim, that the assessments and penalty proceedings were different,that it was not a fit case for levy of concealment penalty.The Departmental Representative (DR)supported the order of the FAA. 2.7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material ....