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

2016 (8) TMI 318 - ITAT MUMBAI

2016 (8) TMI 318 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - difference in purchases - Held that:- The fate of the quantum assessment proceedings is not before us but even in the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, if the fact-situation establishes non-maintainability of a particular addition, then, to the extent of the levy of penalty, the same can be considered appropriately. In the present case, we find that the explanation of the assessee was very much before the lower authoritie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ative for the assessee, the un-reconciled balance of purchases to the extent of ₹ 75,302/- would be exigible to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, on this aspect the Assessing Officer is directed to rework the amount of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Disallowances of balances written off - Held that:- Disallowances relates to amounts written-off by the assessee which are capital in nature. No doubt, the claim of such write-off is not tenable in the eyes of law but we find tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

op. Bank - exemption in terms of Sec. 10(34) denied - Held that:- Every case of a wrong claim cannot invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, especially in the present case where there is no material to suggest any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In fact, apart from the fact that the exemption has been denied, the discussion in the assessment order does not reveal that the assessee had filed any particulars of income which were found to be wrong or otherwise false. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-18, Mumbai dated 04.12.2014, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2010-11, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 27.09.2013 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. In this appeal, assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal: 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in facts and in law in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 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

the disallowance of balances written off to the extent of ₹ 25,40,362/- by stating that the appellant has failed to explain the false claim of balances written off when the appellant has sufficiently explained that the claim of balances written off is only a bona fide error and not a false claim. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals failed to appreciate that making of a claim/expenditure, even if it is ultimately found to be legally unacceptable, cannot tantamount to concealm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0/- pertaining to difference in purchases and disallowance of balance written off to the extent of ₹ 25,40,362/-. 7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in treating the addition of dividend income of ₹ 5,000/- as concealment of income and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 3. Although assessee has raised multiple Grounds of appeal, but the solitary grievance of the assessee arises from the action of CIT(A) in sustaining penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed .....

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 difference between the returned and the assessed loss is on account of disallowances made by the Assessing Officer on account of Sec. 14A, unproved purchases, balances written-off and dividend income. At the time of hearing, the learned representative for the assessee pointed out that so far as the quantum assessment proceedings are concerned, the same have become final as assessee did not prefer any appeal on account of incurrence of loss. Be that as it may, subsequently the Assessing Officer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vaded qua the aforesaid three additions. This action of the Assessing Officer has been further affirmed by the CIT(A) and accordingly, assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. Before us, the learned representative for the assessee, at the outset, pointed out that the non-filing of appeal against the quantum assessment ought not to be considered as admission of any default u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act because the appeal was not filed primarily because assessee company was a loss-making concern and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rnish party-wise details of purchases exceeding ₹ 5 lacs, assessee furnished the details in terms of which total purchases from two parties amounted to ₹ 5,61,36,202/-, detailed as - M/s. DSV Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. - ₹ 2,81,76,701/- and M/s. United Specialty Inks Pvt. Ltd. - ₹ 2,79,59,501/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the total purchases debited in the Profit and Loss account worked out to ₹ 5,22,77,902/- and, therefore, he held that the difference in the purch .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s and certain receipts were not taken into consideration and, therefore, the purchases detailed at ₹ 5,61,36,202/- was erroneous. The learned representative submitted that assessee had no time to explain the discrepancy during assessment proceedings as the assessment order was finalized immediately after submission of the details, but assessee had moved an application seeking rectification of the mistake vide application dt. 5.4.2013 before the Assessing Officer, a copy of which has been p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

chases from the two parties and pointed out that the difference of ₹ 38,58,300/- was erroneous and that the only difference which remained was of an insignificant figure of ₹ 75,302/-. It was therefore contended that the penalty, if any, be retained with respect to the difference of ₹ 75,302/- only. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR while defending the levy of penalty has not disputed the factual matrix brought out by the learned representative for the assessee. 8. In our consid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot merited. We are conscious that the fate of the quantum assessment proceedings is not before us but even in the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, if the fact-situation establishes non-maintainability of a particular addition, then, to the extent of the levy of penalty, the same can be considered appropriately. In the present case, we find that the explanation of the assessee was very much before the lower authorities and, in fact, assessee had moved an application seeking rectifica .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lance of purchases to the extent of ₹ 75,302/- would be exigible to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, on this aspect the Assessing Officer is directed to rework the amount of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. The next addition on which penalty has been levied is a sum of ₹ 25,40,362/- representing disallowances of balances written off. In this regard, the relevant discussion is contained in para 6 of the assessment order dated 15.3.2013 (supra). The learned representative ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

been pointed out that if the aforesaid totalling error is rectified, the addition on this ground would remain at ₹ 13,87,996/- only. On the merits of the levy, the learned representative contended that it is a case where a claim made for write-off of certain balances, though capital in nature, has not been accepted in the assessment proceedings. According to the learned representative, non-acceptance of a claim by itself would not render it liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and .....

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 capital items, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on this aspect and find that so far as the computational error is concerned, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not exigible. Insofar as the disallowance of ₹ 13,87,996/- is concerned, the same relates to amounts written-off by the assessee which are capital in nature. No doubt, the claim of such write-off is not tenable in the eyes of law but we find that the relevant dis .....

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