2023 (1) TMI 1013

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....late deposit of TDS wrongly claimed at Rs.6,578/- 2.1 The CIT(A) concluded in paragraph 7.3 of its order that no penalty should be imposed for disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. On the remaining amount of Rs.95,17,010/-, the CIT(A) sustained the penalty alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. It appears from the record/order sheet that no one has appeared for the assessee on any of the occasions. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and lackadaisical conduct of the assessee, the matter is proceeded ex-parte in the absence of the assessee. 6. The CIT(A) took note of the submissions of the assessee and found complete lack of merit in the plea of the assessee except for the disallowance under Section 14A. The CIT(A) sustained the penalty on the remaining additions. The relevant operative paragraph of the order of the CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder: "7. Decision: 7.1 In the present case, assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was compl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erest of Rs. 35,26,028/- and loan processing fee of Rs. 43,82,400/- had to be disallowed. Thus the disallowance of Rs. 60,72,432/- made by the assessing officer was increased to Rs. 79,08,068/- (Rs. 35,26,028 + Rs. 43,82,040) by Ld. CIT (Appeals). The assessing officer made addition of Rs. 34,38,000/- for the amount of share premium received, by it over the amount of fair market value of shares. The appellant issued 90,000 equity /shares of face value of Rs. 10 each at a premium of Rs 40 per share during the year. The assessing officer did not accept the value of Rs. 71.04 submitted by the appellant and made addition of Rs. 34,38,000/- u/s. 56(2)(viib) being the excess of amount received on allotment of shares above the fair ,market value. Ld. CIT (Appeals) confirmed this addition as the appellant did not submit any evidence in support of its claim of for valuation of shares at Rs. 71.04 per share. The appellant paid interest of Rs. 6,574/-on late deposit on TDS which was claimed as expense. The Assessing Officer disallowed this expense as it is not allowable. No appeal was filed by the appellant on this issue. The AO has made the following chart for the purpose of levying penalty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....actor and assessee declared its income at an estimated 3 per cent of contract receipts - Search took place in assessee's premises and in view of seized materials Assessing Officer gave due opportunity to assessee to justify disclosed income and explain discrepancies noticed by special auditor - Assessee was also permitted to inspect seized documents - Despite that assessee could not explain said discrepancies - Accordingly Assessing Officer resorted to estimation of profits by adopting 11 per cent on gross contract receipts and initiated penalty proceedings - Whether there was gross or wilful negligence on part of assessee in failing to return correct income, penalty would be levied under section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes [Para 12] [In favour of revenue]" [2014] 52 taxmann.com 66 (Delhi), HIGH COURT OF DELHI, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Global Associates. "Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Disallowance of claim, effect of) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee debited an amount towards liquidated damages - Assessing Officer observed that computation of liquidated damages was done on basis that 3 lakhs MT of iron ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er of certain amount received as share application money was made by assessee in view of detection made by Assessing Officer in search conducted in case of assessee's sister concern, said surrender of income not being voluntary in nature, authorities below were justified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c)." Commissioner of Income-tax v. NG Technologies Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 389 (Delhi), HIGH COURT OF DELHI "Section 271(1)(c), read with section 28(i), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -Penalty - For concealment of income (Disallowance of claim, effect) -Assessment year 2006-07 - Whether where assessee claimed loss on sale of fixed assets in profit and loss account which was a capital loss, same was contrary to basic principles of accountancy - Held, yes -Whether since assessee did not file revised return for same voluntarily but had filed revised return after Assessing Officer confronted assessee and they were asked to explain claim of loss in question in profit and loss account penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustainable - Held, yes [Paras 17 and 20] [In favour of revenue], " The above decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the p....