TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....years are different. Therefore for the sake of convenience, we would like to dispose of all five appeals by way of common order and following grounds have been taken by the appellant: 1 .The CIT(A) has erred both in Law and in fact in confirming levy of Penalty u/s. n 27I(1)( c) of Rs. 3 7,22,490/- on addition of Deemed Dividend u/s.2(22)(e) character of which was debatable and having two opinions. It is submitted that the since your Appellant has not "Concealed any Income" or "Furnished Inaccurate particulars of such Income" on facts of the case and provisions of Law and for non acceptance of Explanation Penalty is not levyable. 2. CIT (A) has also erred in confirming Penalty u/s. 271(1)( c) Notice issued which w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able cause for belated plea on the factual aspects, we decline to entertain the same. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are in this case, a survey action U/S.133A of the Act was carried out on 06.10.2012. During the course of survey, assessee has disclosed deemed dividend of Rs. 5,36,578/- in A.Y. 2004-05 from Institute of Fire & Disaster Management services, which is a proprietary concern of the assessee during the period relevant to A.Y. 2004-05. Since the assessee failed to offer tax of above deemed dividend in his original return of income filed u/s. 139(1) on 01.112004, thereafter, case was reopened and the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 29.12.2011 determining total income at Rs. 42,59,058/-. Subs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the revised return filed, though additional income of Rs. 5,35,568/- was shown, the income of Rs. 42,14,149/-towards deemed dividend from M/s Checkmate detective Agency was not shown by the assessee in his return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148. The Assessing Officer also failed to consider the same in the reopened assessment, though the case was re-opened for this very purpose. The assessee, in his submission dated 13.02.2013 in response to the notice u/s. 263(1) of the Act, has admitted that by mistake he had not shown the income towards deemed dividend of Rs. 42,14,149/- from M/s Checkmate Detective Agency in his return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, though he had already paid tax thereon. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereafter, due to change in incumbency, a fresh notice u/s. 271(l)(c) dated 26.07.2013 was issued and duly served upon assessee on the same day. Further, a show-cause notice u/s. 271(1)(C) dated 04.09.2013 was again issued and duly served upon the assessee on 05.09.2013 requiring the assessee to show-cause as to why penalty should not be imposed. The date for compliance with the show-cause notice dated 04.09.2013 was fixed on 12.09.2013. However, neither the assessee furnished any valid explanation nor sought for any adjournment. It is therefore clear that the assessee has nothing to say on this issue which tantamount to acceptance of the default and made him liable to penalty u/s.271(l)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961. 5. Under the above circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In this case, appellant during survey proceedings declared deemed dividend of Rs. 5,36,578/- from the Institute of Fire & Disaster Management Services and prior to that appellant filed his original return u/s. 139(1). Thereafter, case was reopened and assessment u/s. 143(3)r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29.12.2011 determining total income at Rs. 42,59,058/- and subsequently, order u/s. 263 of the Income-tax was passed by the ld. CIT(A). 8. In this case, deemed dividend of Rs. 5,35,568/- and Rs. 42,14,149/- was detected by the Department during the course of survey and the same was admitted by the appellant. 9. However in challenge to penalty proceedings made u/s. 271(1)(c) in IT(SS)A No. 17/Ahd/2014 & ITA No.45/Ahd/2014 order dated 05.04.2....