New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (4) TMI 573 - ITAT HYDERABAD

2016 (4) TMI 573 - ITAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The addition has been made only on the ground that assessee has not been able to produce the evidence in favour of the payments made by the assessee by way of DDs to the proprietary concern of Mr. Chetan P. Shah i.e., Amit Enterprises. There is nothing on record such as documents found during the course of search in the case of Mr. Chetan P. Shah, to show that the payments made by the assessee were fictitious .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is leviable where the assessee does not file his return of income or does not file explanation to the show cause notice for levy of penalty or where the explanation is found to be not bonafide. None of these circumstances exist in the case before us. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is not leviable in the case of the assessee in the absence of any of the above conditions. - Decided in favo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bulk drugs, filed its return of income on 03.11.2003 admitting taxable income of ₹ 1,29,12,461. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 27.12.2005 determining the total income of ₹ 1,43,68,620. Subsequently, the A.O. received information from DDIT (Inv.) Unit-1(3), Mumbai that there was a search operation under section 132 of the I.T. Act on 12.08.2004 in the case of one Mr. Chetan Shah who is an entry operator and during the course of search it came to light that the sa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

same, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2010. The assessee filed a letter dated 20.05.2010 stating that the return of income already filed on 03.11.2003 may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act and also sought the reasons for reopening. On receipt of reasons for reopening of the assessment, assessee submitted that he cannot produce any evidence in respect of the expenditure of ₹ 17,63,784 claimed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he has stated that the assessee agreed for the addition since matter was old and the assessee did not retain the relevant evidence for expenditure incurred in 2002-03 and further that assessee did not prefer any appeal in order to avoid protracted litigation as the matter was old. The A.O. was however, was not convinced with the assessee's contention and has levied the minimum penalty of ₹ 6,48,190, against which, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he reassessment proceedings and also the penalty proceedings were initiated in the years 2010-11. He has submitted that assessee had not retained the relevant documents as the period of six years were already completed and the addition was agreed to only due to his failure to produce necessary evidence and not because there was any positive evidence on record in the possession of the A.O. to demonstrate that these were fictitious expenditure claimed by the assessee. He has submitted that undispu .....

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