Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (1) TMI 365

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xpenses of ₹ 2,98,450/- respectively for which no new evidence was produced. This quantum addition was subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the expenditure at ₹ 7,00,000/-. However, the findings on this addition was confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in its entirety. Admittedly, the assessee was not able to substantiate the claim made by her. However, the Assessing Officer while computing the penalty considered entire disallowance of ₹ 8,15,000/- though at this stage addition was sustained was only ₹ 2,15,000/-. To that extent the assessee shall get relief. In other words, in view of the failure on the part of the ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d measuring 3.5 cents situated at Perumbakkam village for a consideration of ₹ 6,75,000/-. The relevant details of this transaction are as under: Sl.No Name of Seller Extent of land Consideration Rs Nature of document Date 01 Smt. Usharani 3.5 cents cents 6,75,000/- Sale deed 01.03.2007 In this background, this case was notified to Central Circle III(2) vide notification No.13/2008-09 dated 23.12.2008 in C.No.6121/Centrn/2008-9/VI, as a result of which a notice u/s 148 was issued on 14.12.2009. subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner of Income Tax (Appeals) nor before the Assessing Officer. It was observed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the aforesaid additions to the income of the assessee, is apparent from the penalty order under appeal, what upheld both by the then Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. From the facts on records, it is apparent that the assessee had made a wrong claim of the aforesaid expenditure which could not be proven to have been incurred. The aforesaid wrong claim of expenditure resulted in furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income of the assessee resulting in concealment of income. The assessee had not brought any material or evidence or record even during the course of penalty proceedings before the Asse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laim made by her. However, the Assessing Officer while computing the penalty considered entire disallowance of ₹ 8,15,000/- though at this stage addition was sustained was only ₹ 2,15,000/-. To that extent the assessee shall get relief. In other words, in view of the failure on the part of the assessee to substantiate the expenditure of ₹ 2,15,000/- towards dealers commission and marketing expenses penalty to be levied u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act as there is no bonafide explanation from the assessee to this effect and there is furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act towards the additions sustained at ₹ 2,15,000/- only .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates