TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Limited Company engaged in Trading in Agro - Commodities. The department was in possession that During the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee received interest income of Rs. 7,58,122/- on which TDS of Rs. 1,16,814/- was deducted. However the assessee has not offered this income and not even filed the Return of Income for the relevant Assessment Year 2010-11. Therefore the case was reopened by issuing a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 29.11.2013 which was duly served on the assessee. However the assessee did not file the Return of Income in response to the 148 notice. The assessee was issued with 142(1) notice and other notices, summons for 14th times between 17.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and has not offered the same for taxation and issued penalty notice u/s. 271B of the Act for not getting audited its books of account. The A.O. also issued penalty notice under 271F of the Act for not filing the Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 within the prescribed time limit u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The Ld. A.O. also levied minimum penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 57,13,930/- for the assessee willfully and deliberately concealed the income by not filing the Return of Income. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the Case of A.M. shah & Co. vs. CIT (2000) 108 Taxmann.com 137, in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication P. Ltd. reported in 191 Taxmann.com 179 (Delhi). The Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, in the penalty order, the AO has mentioned that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealed the true income. These findings clearly prove that the AO himself is not clear about the defaults committed by the appellant. The AR of the appellant cited several case laws in support of these contentions as mentioned in the submissions. Facts of the case have been carefully gone through. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant did not file return of income and the AO accepted the income as shown by the appellant in the computation of income except minor additions u/s.14A of the Act. There are separate provisions in the Act u/s. 271F for non filing of return of income and penalty for non filing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levied u/s 271(1)(c) when the assessee had not filed his return return of income, and that this default attracted only penalty u/s 271F, whereas non-filing of return by itself demonstrates concealment of income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the Assessing Officer was not sure about the default for which penalty was to be imposed even though the penalty was initiated for concealed of income and imposed for concealment of income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 5. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income by not filing the return of income. Thus the assessee is liable to be levy penalty within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 of the Act. 4.2. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that penalty u/s. 271F ought to have been invoked by the Assessing Officer. This is totally misconception of the facts in the assessee's case. Therefore prayed to restore the penalty order made by the Assessing Officer and allow the revenue's appeal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee in today's hearing as well as in previous hearing date. It is seen from record, the original assessment order was passed is a best judgment assessment passed u/s. ....