9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llery. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 30th October 2005, declaring total income of Rs. 9,71,76,944. During the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has advanced loans to its sister concern Emaar Diamonds Ltd. and as on 1st April 2004, the opening balance was Rs. 2,33,26,000. He, therefore, called upon the assessee to furnish the confirmation from the concerned debtor. On verifying the loan confirmation, it was noticed that the assessee had credit balance in respect of Emaar Diamonds Ltd. for the financial year 2004-05. When this fact was brought to the notice of the assessee with a query as to why it should not be treated as deemed dividend under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal was not pressed at the time of hearing of appeal. Therefore, the addition made under section 2(22)(e) attained finality. On the basis of addition made as aforesaid, proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was initiated by the Assessing Officer with issuance of a show cause notice. In response to the show cause notice, assessee in its explanation, objected to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, but the Assessing Officer, however, was of the view that as additions made under section 2(22)(e) was accepted by the assessee before the Tribunal it is proved that the assessee by not offering the deemed dividend of Rs. 42,47,000 as income has furnished inaccurate particulars of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (e) in the quantum proceedings that will not automatically lead to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). He submitted, as there is no deliberate attempt by the assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not justified. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decision. i) Sunilchandra Vohra v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2009] 32 SOT 365 (Mum.) ii) Gitanjali Ghate v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA no.6560/Mum./2010, order dated 23rd May 2012; iii) ACIT v/s M/s. Patel Holdings Ltd. ITA no.2199/Mum./2011, order dated 30th May 2012; iv) ITO v/s Paramount Apparels Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income or concealment of income is made out. In the facts of the present case, on a reference to the statement of account of loan transaction with M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd., a copy of which has been submitted at Page-8 of the paper book, it is very much clear that the assessee had an opening balance of loan to M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd. amounting to Rs. 2,32,26,000. During the year, the assessee has also received payment against the aforesaid loan to M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd., on different dates starting from 2nd August 2004. As it appears on 23rd September 2004, the assessee received an amount of Rs. 1.50 crores from M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd., as a result of which there was a credit balance in favour of the said party. It is the contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
