TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) sustaining the penalty made by the AO u/s 271 (1) (c). Against assessee. - ITA No.2795/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2013 - Shri D. K. Tyagi, JM And Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Urvashi Shodhan, AR For the Respondent : Shri Rahul Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER Per A. Mohan Alankamony: This appeal is preferred by the assessee aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A)-XVI, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. CIT(A)-XVI/DCIT/Cir.11/296/11-12 dated 19-10-2012, for the assessment year 2007-08, passed u/s 250 read with section 271(1) ( c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The lone ground raised by the assessee is reproduced herein under:- "1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty levied by the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the facts of the case require to be analysed in view of above judicial citations. The appellant has made a claim of Rs.2,83,943/- as amounts paid towards consultancy charges to one M/s. Super Consultancy Services. Before the A. O. the appellant rested its claim on the plea that TDS has been deducted. The appellant did not produce the parties to whom consultancy services were paid nor any cogent evidence of any services rendered by such persons. The A. O. therefore added the said consultancy charges as inadmissible business expenses. The action of the A.O. has been confirmed by the CIT(A) as well as Hon'ble Tribunal in their order mentioned supra. It is the case of the appellant that since the matter involved is a mere disallowance of exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon correct interpretation of law. The penalty order is therefore sustained to the extent of addition of Rs.2,83,943/- and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant dismissed. The A O is accordingly directed to recomputed the quantum of penalty as above." 3.1 Against these findings of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 3.2 During the course of hearing before us, the learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below while as the learned DR relied on the orders revenue and submitted that from the facts of the case, it was clear that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1) (c) of the Act and, therefore, penalty was clearly attracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... number. The assessee had also deducted TDS and same was paid within the prescribed time to the treasury. The assessee has filed ledger accounts of the Super Consultancy Services and Super Testing Laboratory to show that TDS has been deducted on the professional fees paid to them. The assessee further stated that it procures yarn from various suppliers and supplies the same to Mafatlal Industries Ltd. In order to maintain the good quality of yarn before it is applied the services of Super Consultancy Services were unveiled. The assessee uses the services to find out count, strength and proper color of the yarn so as to maintain standard quality of yarn. The assessee also provided copy of the account and all the payments were subjected to TDS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities below and the same is also not filed in the paper book before the Tribunal. On the other hand, learned DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee has not produced any evidence as to what services have been rendered by this party for the business purpose of the assessee. Therefore, addition was rightly made. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and do not find any justification to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. According to the learned Counsel for the assessee, the assessee submitted name and address of the persons to whom payments were made with their PA number. Copy of the ledger account was also field. The learned CIT(A), therefore, rightly noted that by fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied in rejecting the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed." 5. In the instant case, the assessee had made claim of expenditure which was held not to be genuine by the learned AO as well as by the learned CIT(A) and by the Tribunal. Further, the assessee had grossly failed to prove that consultancy services were obtained from M/s. Super Consultancy Services for the purpose of the assessee's business. The circumstantial evidences also showed that the assessee did not obtain any services from M/s. Super Consultancy Services as held by the Tribunal. Thus, it has become evident that the transaction is bogus and not genuine. In these circumstances, we do not feel it necessary to interfere w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
