TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d:- 13-2-2013 - B R Mittal and N K Billaiya, JJ. For the Appellants : Shri K Gopal Jitendra Singh For the Respondent : Shri Rajarshi Dwivedy ORDER:- Per: B R Mittal: The assesee has filed this appeal for assessment year 2003-04 against order dated 8.11.2011 of ld CIT(A)-31,Mumbai confirming the penalty of Rs.2,08,285 imposed by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The relevant materials giving rise to this appeal are that assessee is a partnership firm and filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.40,33,850/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed, inter alia, expenses to the tune of Rs.3,13,286/- on account of screen design and frame ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income; whereby, a wrong or excess claim of expenses under the heads of screen design and frame charges, building repairs and maintenance charges and repairs on plant and machinery claimed to the tune of Rs. 5,66,762/-, is made in its return of income filed for the relevant assessment year. The explanation offered by the appellant before the A.O. during the course of penalty proceedings remained unsubstantiated. Or the appellant could not prove the genuineness of these excess or wrong expenses claimed in its P L account by producing any documentary evidences. No bills and vouchers in support of these expenses claimed is produced neither during the assessment proceedings nor in appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranjan Dasgupta vs ACIT, 61 ITD 1 (Cal) x) ITO vs. Smt Lajwanti Devi, 66 ITD 95(Cal); xi) CIT vs. Nawab and Bros, 107 ITR 681(All); xii) CITvs. Bhuramal Manikchand, 121 IKTR 840(Cal); xiii) CIT vs. Devi Dayal Almn Ind, 171 ITR 683(All) xiv) CIT vs. University Printes, 188 ITR 206(P H); xv) K.p.Madhusudan vs CIT, 151 ITR 99(SC) xvi) K.C.Builders vs ACIT, 265 ITR 562 (SC) 7. He further submitted that there is no concealment by the assessee nor furnishing of any wrong particulars of facts and, therefore, levy of penalty is not justified and placed reliance on the decision dated 14.8.2012 of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/.s. Aditya Birla Nova Ltd., 2012 TIOL-692-HC-MUM-IT. He referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely on the basis of findings recorded in the assessment order. From the facts noticed in the case of the appellant as brought on record in assessment order, penalty order and the appellate order, it is clear that the appellant was given reasonable opportunities of being heard. Moreover, not a single instance that a reasonable opportunity was not granted to the appellant by the AO in this regard is proved by the AR. Ld D.R. submitted that when unsubstantiated expenses were claimed, they were nothing but false claim of the assessee. Hence, levy of penalty is justified. 9. We have considered submissions of ld representatives of parties and orders of authorities below as well as reliance placed by ld A.R. 10. Before penalty can be levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs either before the AO or in appeal. In view of this, we are of the considered opinion that the absence of any explanation or evidence/vouchers to support the claim of the assessee is nothing but false claim/bogus claim of the assessee. This amounts to furnishing wrong particulars of claim as assessee has claimed expenses which have not been substantiated by any document could not be established that claim was genuine. Hence, assessee has concealed its income by claiming expenses which could not be found to be genuine. Accordingly, we hold that levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is justified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Hence, we reject the grounds of appeal taken by assessee and uphold the action of ld CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
