2020 (3) TMI 537

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... arise out of the orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. 2. These appeals were filed by the ex-Directors of the assessee-company with a delay of 329 days. Petitions for condonation of delay were filed by the ex-Directors along with affidavits of the ex-Managing Directors stating therein that the quantum assessments and penalty orders were passed subsequent to their retirement and was not aware of the assessments and penalty proceedings till the ex-Directors received the recovery notices for penalty imposition u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. At the insistence of the Bench, the present management of the assessee-company filed revised Form No.36 along with condonation petitions and affidavits of the present Managing Directors stating the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax, without any delay. However due to our inability to appoint a proper counsel, because of the dire financial condition, no representations could be made before the Learned CIT(A), when the matter was posted for hearing. (vi) By the time the order of penalty was passed viz. 19.01.2018, the Company was facing proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and the Debt Recovery Tribunal had already issued recovery notices. Apart from this, the Company was facing great labour unrest, disabling the Directors from entering the premises and overseeing the day to day work. (vii) The Honorable High Court of Kerala through an order dated 11.08.2015 had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to assess the v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee-company such as financial crises, labour unrest etc. These facts are borne out from the material placed on record. Therefore, no latches can be attributed to the assessee-company for the belated filing of these appeals. Hence, the delay in filing these appeals are condoned and we proceed to dispose of the same on merits. 4. Identical grounds are raised in these appeals and they read as follow:- "1. Assessment was done not on the basis of any books of accounts, but purely on estimation basis. 2. The Appellant had not concealed any particulars of Income. 3. The Appellant is not aware about the reason for the excess cash or other incriminating documents seized from the Company at the time of raid. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeals by the assessee before the Tribunal, the view taken by the CIT(A) was confirmed. 6. Subsequent to the dismissal of appeals filed by the assessee with regard to the quantum assessments, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 274 of the I.T.Act for assessment years 2000-2001 to 2014-2015 and imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. The details of the penalty imposed are as follows:- Asst.Year Penalty amount u/s 271(1)(c) 2000-01 5,45,376 2001-02 6,45,864 2002-03 3,79,442 2003-04 6,73,970 2004-05 5,58,809 Total 28,03,461 7. Aggrieved by the orders imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeals to the first appellate authority. There was no representat....