TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeared. Since the appeal is of 2018 relating to A.Y. 2001-02, we are inclined to take up the matter for adjudication, ex-parte qua the assessee with the assistance of ld. Sr. DR. 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is governed by Portuguese Civil Code and assessed at 50:50 by virtue of section 5A of the Act. Assessee is in the business of hotels, real estates and constructions having eight proprietary concerns for which he maintains separate profit and loss accounts and balance sheets. Return was filed by the assessee on 13.10.2001 reporting a total income of Rs. 2,80,800/-. In the course of assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, owing to complexity involved in the accounts maintained by the assessee, the case was referred for special audit u/s. 142(2A) of the Act based on which assessment was completed at total communion income of Rs. 1,36,79,351/-. The same was apportioned equally among the spouses u/s. 5A at Rs. 65,58,875/- each. Penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) were initiated by the ld. AO for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the particulars of income. 6. Aggrieved by the additions, assessee went in appeal before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed penalties on the final amounts only which remained as confirmed/sustained in the hands of the assessee and not on the initial additions which were made in the assessment. Accordingly, the penalty so imposed is on all those amounts for which either the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the assessment has confirmed the additions or the assessee himself has not preferred any appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) in respect of the additions. 8.4. Ld. CIT(A) thus placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan vs CIT (2001) 118 Taxman 324 (SC) and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Shanti Ramanand Sagar vs CIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 72 (Bombay) and in the case of Palkhi Investments & Trading Co. (P) Ltd. vs ITO (2016) 71 taxmann.com 322 (Bombay), confirmed the penalty imposed by the ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee 9. Considering the detailed, meritorious and fact based findings given by the ld. CIT(A) after analyzing the submission filed by the assessee, more particularly where the assessee himself has not preferred any appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) on certain additions which wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & of this amount were disallowed by Professional treating that that they do not relate to business of assessee. The assessee had submitted all materials and supporting. Fees 24,525 appellant being an The individual could not have claimed expenses relating to formation of company, payment to registrar of companies etc. The addition is confirmed in appeals. The explanation offered during these proceedings are not satisfactory. The Penalty levied for concealment of income is justified and is being uphold. In Karma Construction Cessation of This was the outstanding amount of Liability u/s Loan from Anagram Finance and no 41(1) balance confirmation was received. This amount was added u/s 41(1) which is 33,380 incorrect because this credit has not arisen on account of any expenditure or deductions claimed in earlier years. This was just a loan balance for which no confirmation is received. the assessee has not disputed this addition to buy peace and avoid unwarranted litigation. No balance confirmation was received for the Loan from Anagram Finance and the addition is confirmed in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P valuation. The assessing officer has considered the expenditure totalling to Rs. 3,51,148 as direct expenditure towards the project and added it to WIP value. This expenditure was disclosed by assessee in Profit & Loss Account as Indirect cost. This addition has in reality has no effect on profitability of assessee, because it has just a contra effect. The final difference of 3,51, 148 in WIP valuation is confirmed after the appeal. The explanations offered are not satisfactory. The Penalty levied justified and is being upheld. for concealment of income is 10 Unexplained cash deposit 4,120 Unexplained cash credit 7,260 This was the cash deposited in bank, the source of which was not explained by AR before Assessing Officer, to by assessee accepted this peace the addition, This was the cash deposited in bank. the source of which was not explained by AR before Assessing Officer, to by peace the assessee accepted this addition. The cash deposited in bank amounting to 4,120 is confirmed after the appeal. The explanations offered are not satisfactory. The Penalty lev....