TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 143(3) and penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. There is a delay of 61 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an Affidavit of the assessee. 3. I have heard the learned Authorised Representative as well as learned Departmental Representative and considered the Affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the delay in filing the appeals. The ld. AR has referred to the contents of the Affidavit and submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is due to time taken in appointing Chartered Accountant to look after the income tax matters in fling the appeals and the assessee has und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the interest of justice the delay of 61 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal is condoned. 6. In the quantum appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in passing the order in the manner he did. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, given an adequate opportunity to the appellant to explain the sufficient cause for the delay as the delay was caused by the authorized representative of the appellant which was a bona fide mistake and not intentional. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that on merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the appeal for condonation of delay of four years. Accordingly, the appeals filed against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') deserves dismissal. Further it is noted that the assessee has not produced the relevant record in support of the claim of deposit of ₹ 25 lakhs in the bank account. It is pertinent to note that the assessment order in thecase of the assessee on 30.12.2008 and the assessee took four years to file the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) despite taking four years the assessee did not file the supporting evidence even before the CIT (Appeals). Now at this stage the assessee has filed additional evidence and seeking permission to file the additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxes have been paid on the same. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the reasonable cause and hardship of the Appellant for not furnishing the proof for the cash deposit since the Appellant's failure to produce the documents was on account of reasonable cause. Thus, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and consequently the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1 )( c) of the Act was uncalled for. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the various judicial pronouncements relied on by the Appellant. 6. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. the Appellant prays that the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 11. The assessee has filed the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and submitted that the Assessing Officer has not specified the default on the part of the assessee whether it is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore the said show cause notice under Section 274 is defective and illegal and consequently penalty is not sustainable. She has also relied upon the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court dt.25.1.2016 in the case of Safina Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Bangalore III Another in ITA No.240/2010 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has reiterated the principle as laid out in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is held that the levy of penalty is not automatic concomitant of the assessment and the standard proforma without speaking of the relevant clauses lead to an inference to non-application of mind. In the conclusion part at para.63 of the said judgment, in clauses n,p,q,r, it is held thus: (n) The direction referred to in Explanation IB to Section 271 of the Act should be clear and without any ambiguity. (p) Notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. (q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
