TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cern. The Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal maintained levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on that account. The Tribunal had correctly recorded that the assessee having under declared its receipt is exigible to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act view of the concurrent findings of concealment of income - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 166 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2015 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Adv JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 25.9.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) at ₹ 2,66,292/- whereas the TDS certificates annexed with the return of income showed total receipts of ₹ 1,18,87,936/-. The Assessing Officer called for the information from the Executive Engineer, PWD, Sirhind and as per the information received, the total contract receipts were ₹ 1,40,42,320/- against which TDS of ₹ 3,14,551/- was deducted. The assessee was, thus, found to have suppressed the contract receipts to the extent of ₹ 21,54,387/-. Accordingly, the assessee was issued show cause notice to explain the difference. The assessee filed reply by pleading that the difference of ₹ 20,52,268/- be added to the gross receipts on which GP rate be applied. The plea of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis but confirmed the addition made on account of suppression of receipts to the extent of ₹ 21,54,387/-. Being dissatisfied, the revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal. The revenue filed appeal against the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) which was on account of concealed income in pursuance to estimation of profits whereas the assessee filed the appeal against penalty sustained by the CIT(A) on suppression of receipts to the tune of ₹ 21,54,387/-. The Tribunal vide order dated 25.9.2013 (Annexure A-4) dismissed both the appeals. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no concealment of income. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orded by the Tribunal read as under:- 19. The other addition on which penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied, was under declaration of the receipts by the assessee. The assessee is a Contractor and during the year under consideration, had undertaken contracts of various government bodies. The assessee had declared contract receipts from the civil work undertaken by the assessee. However, receipts totalling ₹ 21,54,387/- were not declared and some part was declared in the security account by the assessee but were not declared as part of the receipts from PWD, Sirhind. When information was called from the PWD, Sirhind, the Assessing Officer found the assessee to have suppressed its contract receipts on which tax was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
