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

2015 (3) TMI 1169 - ITAT MUMBAI

2015 (3) TMI 1169 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- Although the assessee has shown income from the profession of consultancy to the tune of ₹ 14,62,000/- however, as per AIR information income under this head was found to be ₹ 15,65,336 /- which shows that there was deliberately and intentional concealment on the part of the asessee and similarly, the interest income received by the assessee as per AIR was ₹ 75,190/- which was not offer .....

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 there was some bonafide mistake on the part of the assesse to conceal the said income. Since, the assessee failed to discharge his basic onus to prove before us or before the revenue authorities that the mistake on the part of assessee was bonafide and therefore not reflected the said income in the return of income. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly upheld the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) passed by AO. - Decided against assessee. - I.T.A. No. 313/Mum/2014 - Dated:- 18-3-2015 - SHRI JA .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer-Range 25(3), Mumbai without appreciating the facts and the written submission made during the course of the penalty proceedings. 2. Your Appellant craves to leave, to add, to modify or delete the above grounds of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assesssee had filed his return of income on 31.08.2009 wherein the assessee had declared his income at ₹ 61,88,188/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and selected .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bank as per AIR was ₹ 75,190/- which was not offered for taxation and consequently after seeking reply from the assessee, the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act,1961 was passed. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) after considering the case of the assessee had dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 18.10.13. 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee filed the present appeal before us on the grounds mentioned he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mitted that the appellant is a technically qualified person and has done his PhD in computers and Controls. The assessee missed out on the disclosure of income as he is not conversant with the Indian accounting rules and Indian Tax laws. The assessee was under bonafide belief as consultancy income amounting to ₹ 1,03,336/- remained to be included in the income as the party (HAL Edgewood Technologies Private Ltd) did not deduct income tax at source from the payment made to the assesee. It w .....

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 rely upon the following judgements: 1. Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [Kolkata (SC)] 2. CIT vs. Ms. Sania Mirza (Andhra Pradesh HC) 3. CIT vs. M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd (Bombay HC) 4. The CIT vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd (Bombay HC), 5. Dy. CIT vs. Shri Suraj Singh (ITAT Lucknow Bench). 4.2 On the other hand, ld. DR representing the revenue relied upon the orders passed by lower authorities and submitted that there was a intentional concealment on the part of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mit any explanation, rather the AR had accepted these concealed income during the course of assessment proceeding. In the present case, the fact was disclosed by AIR information which proves that the assesseee concealed these much of receipts deliberately which could have been un-noticed in case the case was not selected for scrutiny. 5.1 We have considered the contentions raised by the assessee to the effect that the amount of ₹ 1,03,336/- regarding concealment of income was missed out 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

orities. Although the assessee relied upon the judgements but the facts of all the cases are distinguishable and are not similar to the facts of the present case for example in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd. vs. CIT , Kolkata (SC) (supra) it has been categorically mentioned that as per the facts of that case the assessee had filed revised return on the same date of coming to know the defect and the reassessment was passed on the same date and the assessee paid tax due as well as i .....

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