TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of scrutiny assessment and would be evaded if the scrutiny assessment was not done the penalty on concealment should be imposed. Therefore, the AO was fully justified in imposing the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and Ld. CIT(A) was also right in reducing the amount of TDS and rightly confirmed the penalty of ₹ 1,25,306/- instead of ₹ 1,45,906/-. Hence, no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 4995/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2015 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR For The Department : Sh. V.K. Sehgal, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal by the Assessee is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the I.T. Act were initiated and the case was fixed on 29.4.2013 to afford an opportunity to furnish its reply. On the fixed date neither the assessee nor its representative attended. Another show cause notice u/s. 271(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 5.8.2013 was issued and the case was fixed for 21.8.2013. On the fixed date, again no compliance has been made by the assessee. In view of these facts, it seems that the assessee has nothing to say in this regard and therefore, the AO held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income to the extent of ₹ 5,38,854/- within the meaning of Explanation 1(A) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, he imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,45,906/- which is equal to 100% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under scrutiny. It is also clear that the appellant had not fully disclosed all the facts at the time of filing of return of income. Though the AR has relied upon various judicial pronouncements to argue that there was no intention or desired to concealed the income, in the present case it was evident that the assessee had received this substantial amount of ₹ 5,38,854/-, which should have been made the assessee curious about this entry in his bank account. Therefore, it is clear that this amount had not been truly disclosed and explained by the appellant at the time of filing of its return of income. In the present case therefore this amount of ₹ 5,38,854/- has to be treated as concealed income. In this regard, reliance is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is clear that this amount had not been truly disclosed and explained by the assessee at the time of filing of its return of income, therefore, this amount of ₹ 5,38,854/- was treated as concealed income and therefore, the reliance was placed upon on the decision of Zoom Telecommunication Ltd. (Del) 2011, wherein it has been held that since the income has been detected on account of scrutiny assessment and would be evaded if the scrutiny assessment was not done the penalty on concealment should be imposed. Therefore, the AO was fully justified in imposing the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and Ld. CIT(A) was also right in reducing the amount of TDS and rightly confirmed the penalty of ₹ 1,25,306/- instead of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
