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. Sai Televisions Ltd. Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (2) , Kolkatta.

2016 (4) TMI 508 - ITAT CHENNAI

Unexplained investment under section 69 - Held that:- the learned Authorized Representative could not furnish any materials to explain the source of investment of the assessee. Therefore, we do not have any other option but to confirm the order of the Revenue on this issue. Accordingly, we hereby confirm the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer which was further sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided against assessee

Penalty u/s 271(c) - Hel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

JCIT ORDER Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:- Both these appeals are filed by the assessee aggrieved by the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-15, Chennai dated 13.01.2015 in ITA No.1596 &1062/13-14/A-15 passed under section 144/147 r.w.s.250 and 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No.372/Mds/2015:- 2. The only ground raised by the assessee in its appeal is that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 200,82,00,000/- m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt year 2005-06 on 31.10.2005 declaring loss of ₹ 1,58,877/-. Subsequently, in pursuance to the order of the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal dated 2.2.2012, assessee was given an opportunity of being heard by the learned Assessing Officer to verify the source of investment made by the assessee for ₹ 200,82,00,000/- . Since the assessee did not co-operate with the Revenue and failed to explain the source of investment for ₹ 200,82,00,000/-, though several opportunities were provi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

idered the submissions of the AR of the appellant as well as the findings given in the assessment order carefully. As stated in the order of assessment, the AO had given ample opportunities vide his office letters dated 05.11.2012, 24.01.2013 and 18.02.2013 to furnish the details of the sources of investments made of ₹ 2,00,82,000/- No compliance was made before the AO even in the second round of assessment proceedings. Even before the appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant was giv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

specifically required to furnish the material evidence to prove its claim of investments made prior to the financial year relevant to A.Y. under consideration. The AR of the appellant stated orally that he is unable to produce any evidence in support of its claim. Therefore, all the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant are rejected as they do not have any credibility. In the absence of basic evidences forthcoming from the appellant, I am of the confirmed view that the appellant had made inve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cumstances of the case, I fully agree with the view of the AO to tax an amount of ₹ 200,82,00,000/- under the head unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. 5. Before us also, the learned Authorized Representative could not furnish any materials to explain the source of investment of the assessee for ₹ 200,82,00,000/-. Therefore, we do not have any other option but to confirm the order of the Revenue on this issue. Accordingly, we hereby confirm the addition made by the learned As .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Authorized Representative. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer levied penalty for Rs. ₹ 72,93,844/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. Before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also the assessee has not come out with any explanation. Therefore, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the penalty in the hands of the assessee by observing as under:- In the course of appellate proceedings filed against order of penalty before the undersigned, numerou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, Sri A.5.Sriraman, Advocate stated that the explanation furnished by the appellant in the course of penalty proceedings before the AD was bonafide and relied upon the ratio of the Apex Court decision in the case of Reliance Petro products (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158. I have considered the submissions made by the AR of the appellant and also findings of the AD in the order of penalty dated 23.09.2013. I have also perused the order of CIT(A)- 15, Chennai in ITA No.1596/13-14/A-15, dated 13.01.2015 confi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellate proceedings in ITA No.1596/13- 14/A-15, dated 13.01.2015, the appellant failed to offer satisfactory explanation about the source of investment of ₹ 200,82,00,000/- made during the financial year relevant to the A.Y. under consideration. The claims of the appellant that the investment pertains to the financial year prior to the financial year relevant to the A.Y. 2005-06 was rejected by the undersigned in my appellate order dated 13.01.2015 as the appellant was unable to furnish 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

an the A.Y. under consideration. Inspite of numerous opportunities granted by the AO in the course of levy of penalty proceedings and also during the present appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant could not furnish the material evidence in support of its claim made regarding the source of investment of ₹ 200,82,00,000 /- with the VSNL. The explanation offered by the appellant was not substantiated. Further, the explanation furnished by the appellant was not bonafide. The explanatio .....

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