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 →

Shri Vivek Shyam Johri Versus Addl. CIT, Range 14 (3) , Mumbai

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Quantum addition, @0.1% of turnover on account of low G.P. in the year under consideration vis-a-vis the immediately preceding year, upheld by Tribunal - Further, assessee failed to bring on record material evidence to controvert the findings of the learned CIT(A) in upholding the levy of penalty - Held that:- In these circumstances, we uphold the CIT(A)s action in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 5617/Mum/2013 - Dated:- 7 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

retail trading of diamonds. In the case on hand the assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 23.12.2011 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 30,63,850/- as against the returned income of ₹ 5,05,851/- in view of the addition of ₹ 25,58,000/- @0.5% of turnover on account of low G.P. shown in the year under consideration vis-a-vis the immediately preceding year and also taking into account the low drawings of 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

e quantum proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) took up the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition of ₹ 5,11,785/- by issue of letter dated 19.12.2012 to the assessee affording him opportunity to show cause why penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied in his case. In reply thereto, the learned A.R. for the assessee vide letter dated 21.12.2012 stated that the assessee s reply in the matter was filed vide letter dated 05.01 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e assessee s appeal vide the impugned order dated 31.07.2013. 3. The assessee, being aggrieved by the impugned order of the CIT(A)- 25, Mumbai dated 31.07.2013 for A.Y. 2009-10 upholding the levy of penalty of ₹ 1,73,954/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO, has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds: - 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of ₹ 1,73,954/- levied by ITO 14(2)-4 without appreciating the fact that there was neither .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tice board. On other dates the case was adjourned on the request of the learned A.R. for the assessee. When the case was called for hearing on 02.06.2016, none was present for the assessee but the learned D.R. for Revenue was present and ready to present the case. In the circumstances, as discussed above, it appears to us that the assessee is not serious about pursuing this appeal and we therefore proceed to dispose this appeal with the assistance of the learned D.R. and the material on record. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5.2 The learned D.R. emphatically supported the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty of ₹ 1,73,954/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10. It was brought to the notice of the Bench that in quantum proceedings, a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal had, in its order dated 05.11.2015, upheld the G.P. addition to the extent of 0.1% thereby confirming the order of the learned CIT(A) d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

from the order of assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 dated 23.12.2011 upto the order of the AO levying penalty of ₹ 1,73,954/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is contended that since the assessee had failed to bring on record any material evidence to contravene the findings of the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order in respect of the sustaining of penalty of ₹ 1,73,954/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee s appeal ought to be dismissed. 5.3.1 We have heard the l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntended that he had neither concealed the income nor filed inaccurate particulars of income and thus was not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c). He pointed out that the penalty was levied on the basis of assessment wherein the income was arbitrarily estimated by adding 0.5% (later revised to 0.1%) in G.P. on sales and when the income is estimated by enhancing G.P., the question of levy of penalty does not arise. The appellant relied upon the following judgments: 1. CIT vs. Bombay Hardware Syndicate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Sirpurkar J. (arising out of SLP(C) No. 27161 of 2008) 11. Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (125 Taxman 242) Punj. & Har. 12. Sadhu Ram Goyal vs. DCIT (128 lTD 436) Jp 13. Shiv Lal Tak vs. CIT (121 Taxman 99) Raj. 5. In contrast, the following relevant observations are made from the assessment order. 5.1 It appears that the AO was not satisfied with the stock register maintained by the assessee for the reason that it does not contain the details about the quality of diamonds. The AO has pointed out .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant Ltd., Rich Style Ltd. and Star Grace Ltd. He has only submitted that he has filed the copy of stock register and all the transactions are explained there. 5.3 The AO has pointed out in assessment order that the assessee has failed to produce all the jangads maintained. Perusal of some of the jangads produced before him reveals that only the quantity and rate is mentioned. There is no mention of size, colour, clarity, shape etc. 5.4 The AO has made a comparative statement of two diamond tra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pting the comparative details filed by the assessee in para 5.5 of the assessment order and given reasons for distinguishing the same from the case of assessee. 6. Based on aforesaid facts, the AO has observed that the assessee is not maintaining his books of accounts in proper manner and there is enough scope for manipulation in the books of account maintained by the assessee. Therefore, he rejected the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. He placed reliance on th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

AO has further observed that the assessee having a turnover of ₹ 55 crores had annual expenditure of ₹ 30,000/- only. The reasons submitted by the assessee were not acceptable as the drawings shown by him were highly inadequate. This also confirmed the view of AO why addition should be made in the gross profit of the assessee's business. However, he did not make separate addition in this behalf, as the addition on account of low drawings is covered by the addition made on account .....

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 appellant, it appears that the circumstances are distinguishable on facts of each case. For example: In the case CIT vs. Bombay Hardware Syndicate (supra), it was observed that mere estimate made, however well founded it may be, by itself would not normally constitute material for holding that income that has been added on basis of estimate was income that has been concealed, rather it is also necessary to establish the quantum of the income that had escaped assessment, on the basis of which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e of CIT vs. Metal Products of India (supra), the penalty for concealment levied was cancelled by tribunal, on grounds that assessee had discharged onus cast on it by producing regular books of account, and that though there was discrepancy in value of stock as per books of account, no addition had specifically been made on this account. In the case of CIT vs. Ajay Hari Dalmia (supra), the penalty was cancelled on ground that as particulars of concealment had not been disclosed to assessee, he 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

o other conclusion could be reached but that failure to return total assessed income was not on account of any fraud or gross or willful neglect on part of assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Gordhandas Moolchand (supra), the Tribunal held that what was brought to tax could not be referred to any particular assessment year and there was no evidence to show that said sum added could be related to relevant assessment year, and hence penalty was cancelled. In the case of Hindustan Steel Co. (supra), 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

well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. In the case of Harigopal Singh (supra), it was observed that there was not even an iota of evidence on the record to show that the income of the assessee during the year under appeal was more than the income returned by him. In the case of Sadhu Ram Goyal (supra), it was noted that on question of quantum of addition, all authorities including .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

place of conclusive proof so as to discard evidence and attending circumstances on that basis alone. 10. It can be deduced from aforesaid judgments relied upon by the appellant that mere addition on estimate basis is not sufficient to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, instead the whole facts and intention of assessee need to be looked into on case to case basis. In the present case, the AO has sufficiently shown that the stock records maintained by the assessee were grossly unsatisfactory, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the particulars of income by understating the gross profits. This belief was further fortified with the paltry annual drawings shown by the assessee. Hence, the facts and evidences of the case are clearly against the appellant. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) has held as under: "The Explanation appended to section 271(1)(c) entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee .....

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
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

Forum: Due date of Filing TRAN-1

Forum: Manpower Service provider

Forum: Excise duty credit on finished stock at additional place of business.

Forum: 3B mistake

Highlight: Diversion of income at source - Joint venture agreement - 97% of the receipt transfer to M/s TRG Industries (P) Ltd. - scope of the agreement - it is diversion by overriding title - not taxable in the hands of assessee - HC

Highlight: Expenditure on eligible projects or schemes u/s 35AC - After 01.04.2017 the legislature desired to withdraw such deduction. - The Union legislature was competent to introduce such amendment - HC

Highlight: Transfer of trading assets at cost price, the profit component also stood transferred to the outgoing Directors, which otherwise belonged to the Company - the fact that AO has made the addition in the hands of the Directors would not make any difference - additions confirmed - HC

Highlight: The interest u/s 234B of the Act cannot go beyond the stage of S.245D(I) before the Settlement Commission - HC

Highlight: Galvanized iron pipe is a different commercial commodity than a iron pipe, therefore the activity of galvanization in our considered opinion amounts to manufacture - Deduction u/s 80-IB allowed - HC

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271C - non deduction of TDS on interest paid to sister concerns in terms of Section 194A - Levy of penalty confirmed - HC

Highlight: Disallowance of interest - reference to section 179 - The legislature has also recognised, that the doctrine of lifting of veil in the matter of tax dues is to be applied to prevent fraud etc. and not where the company has suffered despite its normal bona fide function. - HC

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Notification: Amendment in Notification No. S.O. 3118(E), dated the 3rd October, 2016

Highlight: Discount on ESOP to be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1), during the years of vesting on the basis of percentage of vesting during such period, subject to upward or downward adjustment at the time of exercise of option.

Notification: Central Government appoints the 20th September, 2017 as the date on which proviso to clause (87) of section 2 of the Companies Act 2013, shall come into force

Notification: Companies (Restriction on number of layers) Rules, 2017

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income disclosure - surrender of income post survey u/s 133A - he disclosure made by the assessee is voluntary in nature, in the revised return - no penalty

Highlight: Reopening of assessment - notice u/s 148 issued on the directions of JCIT / CIT - a perusal of reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings clearly show that they are against the sprit of provisions u/s 147

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule

Highlight: MAT - Adjustment to book profit - computation u/clause (f) of Explanation-1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D of I.T. Rules.

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Highlight: Addition on account of alleged suppression of service value received - the addition made simply believing the Form 26AS will be an arbitrary exercise of power which cannot be sustained

Notification: Exempts intra state supply of heavy water and nuclear fuels from DAE to NPCIL

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 12/2017-UTT(R) to exempt right to admission to the events organised under FIFA U-17 World Cup 2017

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 11/2017- UTT(R) to reduce CGST rate on specified supplies of Works Contract Services

Highlight: Liability to pay duty on import of software - Though no authorization was given by the appellant to DHL, it is an undisputed position that the software has, in fact, been ordered by the appellant and have been delivered to them by DHL - the appellant is to be considered as the importer

Notification: Exempts inter-state supply of heavy water and nuclear fuels from DAE to NPCIL

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 09/2017-IT(R) to exempt right to admission to the events organised under FIFA U-17 World Cup 2017

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 08/2017-IT(R) to reduce CGST rate on specified supplies of Works Contract Services

Notification: Exempts intra state supply of heavy water and nuclear fuels from DAE to NPCIL

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 12/2017-CT(R) to exempt right to admission to the events organised under FIFA U-17 World Cup 2017

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 11/2017-CT(R) to reduce CGST rate on specified supplies of Works Contract Services.

News: Tax on fuel more important for a dry state like Gujarat

Highlight: For an ayurvedic medicine to be classified under Chapter 30 has to pass the test whether it is for cure of any disease. If the same is only meant for care, then such product would not fall under medicament.

Highlight: Demand of interest - the period of limitation that applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim of interest thereon.

Highlight: Government issues new notifications under CGST, IGST and UTGST to grant fresh exemptions in respect of certain supplies.

Circular: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

Forum: Input tax credit

Forum: Cess paid instead of SGST

Forum: Construction of single unit bungalow

Article: SIMPLIFIED E-WAY BILL UNDER GST

Article: SERVICES UNDER REVERSE CHARGE UNDER GST REGIME

Highlight: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 22th September, 2017 - Notification

Highlight: Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Second Amendment Rules, 2017 - Notification

Highlight: Implementing Electronic Sealing for containers by exporters under self-sealing procedure prescribed by Circular 26/2017-Cus dated 1st July, 2017 and Circular 36/2017 dated 28 th August, 2017. reg. - Circular

Highlight: Amendment to Paragraph 2.72 (b) of the Handbook of Procedures of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-20 - Public Notice

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012

Circular: Amendment to Paragraph 2.72 (b) of the Handbook of Procedures of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-20

Notification: Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Second Amendment Rules, 2017

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 22th September, 2017



|| 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