Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Kumar Builders, Kotakpura, Faridkot Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

2015 (11) TMI 494 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - wrong entry in account books due to non receipt of proper and complete documents by assessee firm and thereby booking under wrong heads by treating - Held that:- The assessee is a contractor carrying on contracts of various government bodies. The assessee had short declared contract receipts from the civil work undertaken by it. Some part of the said amount was declared in the security amount by the assessee but not as part of the taxable receipts from PWD, Sirhind. Thus, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

014 - 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 25.9.2013 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "A", Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty so levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of wrong entry in account books ignoring the trite law as settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC)? iii) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse and against the provisions of law? 2. Put shortly, the facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal as mentioned there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6/-. 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 ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t while for the balance amount, profit @ 5.36% was offered for taxation. The case of the assessee was referred under Section 142(2A) of the Act for special audit by the Assessing Officer and made an addition of ₹ 21,54,387/- on account of suppression of receipts from PWD, Sirhind vide assessment order dated 28.5.2009 (Annexure A-1). Another addition was made by the Assessing Officer by rejecting the books of account and income of the assessee was estimated @ 12% on total turnover of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e order dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure A-3) deleted the penalty on account of addition made on estimate 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ax v. Ms. Sania Mirza, ITA No. 526 of 2011 decided on 9.2.2012, it was submitted that the penalty imposed was unsustainable. In fact the assessee had never claimed any benefit under TDS certificate as it had not been issued till the time of filing of the return. The finding recorded by the Assessing Officer, confirmed by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal for levy of penalty are against the record. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue supported the order passed by the Tribunal. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

deducted at source by the said concern. 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 recorded that the assessee having under declared its receipt is exigible to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant findings recorded 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version