TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been found not to be a bonafide explanation - FAA was justified in confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act – Decided against Assessee. - ITA No. 8744/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2014 - Sh. I. P. Bansal And Rajendra,JJ. For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent : Shri Nirja Pradhan ORDER Per Rajendra, AM Challenging the order dated. 17. 10. 2011 of the CIT(A)-22, Mumbai, assessee has raised following grounds appeal: 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Hon. CIT(A) is not justified in not giving proper and sufficient opportunity for hearing and confirming the order of the Assessing Officer ex-parte. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice issued by the AO, assessee contended that sum of Rs. 22. 64 lakhs inadvertently remained to be added to the total income, that interest expenses were incurred for business purposes, that disallowance of commission expenditure would not invite penalty provisions. After considering the submission of the assessee, AO held that assessee had offered sum of Rs. 22. 64 lakhs for taxation only after a notice was issued to it, that it had filed its return of income without including the said amount in its statement of income, that it was well aware that commission was paid for acquisition of capital asset and hence was to be capitalised, that the claim of deduction under the head revenue expenditure was false and incorrect, that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had not offered any explanation, that AO was justified in levying penalty amounting to Rs. 12. 23 lakhs. Nobody appeared before us, nor any application for adjourning the matter has been filed by the assessee. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the AO and the FAA. She further argued that assessee had not filed any explanation before both the authorities about the concealed income, that its surrender Rs. 22. 64 lakhs only after a notice was issued by the AO, that it had claimed patently wrong deduction in the return of income. In this case, assessee was informed by registered letter (AD) that matter would be heard on 19. 06. 2014. We find that acknowledgment, duly served on the assessee, is placed on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. In the case under consideration the explanation filed by the assessee has been found not to be a bonafide explanation. Therefore, in our opinion, FAA was justified in confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Upholding his order, we decide effective ground of appeal against the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
