Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 130 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowances/additions on incentive payments, unexplained cash credits/deposits u/s.68, loans and advances to M/s. Cox and Kings (India) Ltd., other persons and expenditure incurred by assessee’s Director Shri Ashwin Patel - Held that:- For disallowances/additions on incentive payments quantum disallowance had been made on ad hoc basis without any question of its genuineness per se. We conclude that accordingly that the same is not in the nature of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as the quantum disallowance hereinabove has arisen as the assessee could not prove its justification to have incurred the same in the relevant previous year as per its turnover and profit figure. We accordingly accept assessee’s challenge to correctness of the impugned penalty qua this first issue. Section 68 addition - It emerges that the Assessing Officer’s remand report submitted during the course of the quantum lower appellate proceedings on 10.05.2010 found aggregate sum of ₹ 12,21,251/- out of ₹ 12,61,251/- to be genuine. The assessee does not appear to have filed confirmation of Shri Narayanbhai Motibhai in this regard. We observe in these facts that the said failure in view of all mitigating facts particularly in view of the tax payer having proved almost all of the amounts in question cannot be taken as an instance of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We accept assessee’s challenge to the impugned penalty qua this second issue as well. Quantum addition in the nature of payments made to various parties Departmental Representative fails to dispute that the CIT(A) has not specifically rejected the above telling of the cash balance vis-à-vis the sum in question. We therefore delete the impugned penalty pertaining to this third issue as well. Expenditure incurred by assessee’s Director Shri Ashwin Patel - It emerges that the assessee has not filed any explanation much less a satisfactory one in quantum as well as in the instant penalty proceedings. We thus reject assessee’s substantive ground relevant to the instant issue. The impugned penalty on this last issue is therefore affirmed. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|