Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 227 - ITAT DELHI

2016 (2) TMI 227 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - penalty imposed by the AO @ 200% - CIT(A) restricting the penalty to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded - Held that:- AR has already deposited the tax, interest and penalty on the concealed income. The ld. CIT(A) has arrived at his conclusion by relying on the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT VS. Mak Data Ltd [2013 (1) TMI 574 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and held the AO to be right in charging the asse .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

void will meet the end of justice in such cases. Also in view of the fact that the assessee has already deposited the tax, interest and penalty, we decline to interfere with the order of the first appellate authority. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 6300/Del /2013 - Dated:- 6-1-2016 - SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Sr. DR For The Respondent : Shri R.K. Gulati, Adv ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIA .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hen Assessing Officer Circle38(1), New Delhi, vide her assessment order dated 22-11-2010. During the course assessment proceedings, it was pointed out by the Assessing Officer that as per ITS details available with the department, the assessee has sold two immovable properties, i.e. one on 16-02-2008 for ₹ 34,08,000/-and another on 11-03-2008 for ₹ 52,90,000/- and the assessee was asked to file the details and documents of the above said immovable properties. The assessee, after goin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the assessee had actually sold two immovable properties namely one on 16-02-2008 bearing property no. II/1 10, Gyan Khand, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad (U.P.) for ₹ 32,50,000/- and another on 11-03-2008 bearing property no. 2nd Floor, 37, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad (U.P.) for ₹ 5,00,000., and not the so called immovable properties mentioned earlier, which were mentioned in the AIR available with the department. After receiving the further information in the present case, notice under section 14 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ich the sales proceeds of properties actually sold were credited. After completing the re-assessment proceedings in this case, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee and vide her penalty orders dated 27-04-2012, passed under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act imposed the penalty @ 200% amounting to ₹ 25,33,380/-. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) reduced the quantum of penalty to 100%, against which the depart .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the assessee did not prefer any appeal against the assessment order dated 21-10-2011 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadi Lai Sugar Mills (168 ITR 7051) wherein it has been held that there may be hundred and one reasons for not preferring and agreeing to additions but that does not follow to the conclusion that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. Likewise the Hon ble Kamatk .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

th the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, deposited the assessed tax and interest, has not preferred any appeal against the assessment orders and being a peace loving person did not want any type of confrontation with the department, the penalty proceedings so initiated against the penalty may be dropped. In the penalty order dated 27-04-2012, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it has been alleged by the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the assessee filed false/misleading affidavit during the course of ooriginal assessment proceedings. 5. The ld. AR further submitted that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was arbitrary, unwarranted and excessive on the facts and circumstances of the case. In this regard the ld. AR invited our attention to the decision of Income Tax Tribunal, Ahmadabad A Bench in the case of LMP Precision Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax as reported in (1997) 58 TTJ (Ahd.) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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