TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mention whether notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued for concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income. 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that he does not wish to press ground No. 2. Rejected, as not pressed. 4. Apropos ground No. 1, in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that during the F.Y. 2011-12, relevant to the assessment year under consideration, i.e., assessment year 2012-13, there was an increase of Rs. 2,68,12,425/- worth of fixed assets of the assessee. As per the tax Audit Report, major capital expenditure had been incurred on three items, as under:- Item purchased Name of the party Bill No. Date Date when put to use Amount Purchase of saloon Plants / Equipments etc. Pevonia Spa Care Pvt. Ltd. 008/PSC/201 25-Sep-ll 25-Sep-ll 1,32,09,000 Purchase of saloon Plants / Equipments etc. Pevonia Spa Care Pvt. Ltd. 007/PSC/201 25-Sep-ll 25-Sep-l 1 72,17,520 Plant & Machinery purchased Purchase Imprest - 10-Nov-ll 10-Nov-ll 27,94,120 5. The AO further noticed that the assessee had capitalized interest amounting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., of the view, that the assessee had failed to produce any concrete evidence or explanation and it had, therefore, failed to discharge its onus. 10. Concerning the second issue of disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 2,09,559/-, in the reply to the show cause notice, the assessee merely stated that the purchase bills had been misplaced. The AO observed that such contention of the assessee could not be accepted, since if the bills had been misplaced, the assessee could have got another copy of the bills from the vendor, or, at least, it could have submitted details of the parties/vendors from whom it had purchased the machinery on which the depreciation had been claimed; that, however, the assessee had done neither; and that thus the assessee had failed to provide any concrete evidence or explanation with regard to this addition also and had, thereby, failed to discharge its onus. 11. The AO, thus, imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- being 111.5% of the tax sought to be evaded, holding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. 12. The ld. CIT(A), by virtue of order dated 27.08.2018, upheld the levy of penalty. 13. The assessee preferred an ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty concerned had closed shop. 18. In support of its case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the following decisions:- Name of the Decision Citation 1. Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Sidharth Enterprises 322 ITR 80 (P&H) 3. CIT vs. Rajiv Bhatara 360 ITR 121 (P&H) 4. Manoj Ahuja vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner 150 ITR 696 (P&H) 5. CIT vs. Deepak Kumar 232 CTR 78 (P&H) 6. Pawan Garg vs. ACIT 94 ITR (AT) 159 (Chd. Trib.) 19. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. It has been submitted that plea of mistake, even if it is a bona fide mistake, cannot bail out the assessee from levy of penalty; that non furnishing of evidence to support the claim made does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income; and that the order under appeal has correctly confirmed the levy of penalty, which order be confirmed while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. 20. Heard. The facts are not in dispute. The issue is as to whether in the given circumstances, the assessee could be held to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thereby ratifying the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had been mentioned regarding the property in question. The Hon'ble High Court held that on facts, there was no intention on the part of the assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars and, hence, no concealment penalty could be levied on the assessee. In the case at hand also, as discussed, there was no intention on the part of the assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars. 24. In 'Manoj Ahuja Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner', 150 ITR 696 (P&H), following 'Smt. Nirmal Khosla Vs. Union of India', AIR 1976 Punjab & Haryana 22, it was held that no litigant should ordinarily suffer for a mistake of his counsel. Delay in filing the appeal, incurred due to wrong calculation by the counsel, was condoned. In the case before us also, undisputedly, depreciation was claimed on the basis of working of the auditors. 25. In 'CIT Vs. Deepak Kumar', 232 CTR 78 (P&H), where penalty was levied on the assessee on the ground that the assessee had wrongly claimed depreciation u/s. 10(36) of the Act, but the Tribunal found that the assessee had acted on the advice of his counsel, the Hon'ble High Court held it to be a case of bona fide mistake and not a fit case f....