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 →

D CIT – 24 (2) , Mumbai Versus M/s. Unisynth Chemicals

Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) - undisclosed income on account of bogus purchases and sales - Held that:- On an appreciation of the material on record we are inclined to concur with the view of the CIT(A) that the explanation put-forth by the assessee in the penalty proceedings was a plausible one, inasmuch as, the circumstances on which the additional income was offered was because the disputed parties with whom these transactions were made were non-cooperative and the assessee having n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nalty for concealment of income, does not grant the assessee automatic immunity from penalty on account of surrender or voluntary disclosure of income. As per the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the case own hand we find that the requirement laid down by the Hon’ble Court has been met by the assessee inasmuch as, as observed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted:- 11-1-2017 - Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain , Judicial Member For The Appellant by: Shri Rajesh K. Arvind For The Respondent by: Shri Vimal Punmiya ORDER Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-34, Mumbai dated 31.07.2014 for A.Y. 2010-11 deleting the penalty of ₹ 14,53,833/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are 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

urvey statement of Shri Manoj Sharma, partner in the assessee firm was recorded wherein he admitted income of ₹ 47,04,960/- as difference of disputed/bogus purchases and sales for the year under consideration. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.01.2013, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 2,95,08,260/-, inter alia, mainly on account of undisclosed income of ₹ 47,04,960/- admitted in the course of survey action 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

pg. 4 of the penalty order) submitting that the income in respect of disputed/bogus purchases of ₹ 47,04,960/- was made only due to the fact that the parties referred to in the order of assessment to/from whom sales and purchases were made had disowned the transactions and did not cooperate with it and therefore the assessee was not in a position to substantiate its claim with evidence to prove that the dealings with these parties were in order. The AO brushed aside the explanation put for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rchase/sales and are simply involved in issuing of bills. In that view of the matter, the AO proceeded to levy penalty of ₹ 14,53,833/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act @100% of tax sought to be evaded on such purchases amounting to ₹ 47,04,060/-. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order levying penalty of ₹ 14,53,833/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-34, Mumbai. The learned CIT(A) allowed the assessee s appeal and del .....

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 addition made on the basis of admitted undisclosed income of Rs,47,04,960/- during the course of survey u/s. 1 33A of the I.T. Act. which proved concealment of income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in concluding that the addition is on account of offered & accepted income which does not mean that the assessee has agreed for penalty. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and genuineness of any purchase appearing in the books lies with the assessee which assessee had failed to satisfy during the assessment proceedings. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee did not prefer appeal against the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 6. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and matter may be decided according to law. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) 358 ITR 593 (SC). 3.3.1 Per contra, the Ld. Representative for the assessee placed strong support on the impugned order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2005-06. The Ld. Representative for the assessee reiterated the factual submissions and legal propositions put forth by it before the CIT(A) and extracted at para 3.2 at pages 3 to 19 thereof in further written submissions filed before the Bench. In submissions put-forth 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

ee s case as erroneous, fictitious or concealment, merely because the non-acceptance of other parties to the transactions entered to with the assessee, and should not be the reason behind levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (iii) Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act not exigible only for the reason that no appeals were filed against the quantum additions, as penalty proceedings are different from assessment proceedings. (iv) While penalty proceedings in the case on hand wer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d (ii) Dharni Developers v. ACIT (2015) (40 ITR (Tribunal) 120) (Mumbai -Trib). 3.3.2 An affidavit dated 10/6/2016 sworn to by Shri Manoj Sharma, Partner in the assessee firm has also been filed in which it is stated that pursuant to the survey action under section 133A of the Act in the assessee s case on 08/01/2013, additional income was declared for three years as under on the same income:- S.No. Asst.Year Amount in (Rs.) 1. 2009-10 59,77,088 2. 2010-11 47,04,960 3. 2011-12 36,72,900 Total 1, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(c) of the Act be upheld and Revenue s appeal dismissed. 3.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty of ₹ 14,53,833/- holding as under at paras 3.3 to 3.6 as under:- 3.3 I have carefully considered the above submissions of the appellant, material available on record and the impugned penalty order. On 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

sed income' offered by the assessee on account of bogus purchases and bogus sales thereof The said "undisclosed income" 0 ₹ 47,04,960/- was offered by the assessee, as a result of survey action u/s.133A conducted on 08.01.2013 as the business premises of the assessee firm. Addition was made on the basis of income offered by the appellant as undisclosed income on account of the difference of bogus purchase and sales. Penalty was levied by AO on this addition by concluding that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

annot be lead to inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the same cannot be subjected to initiation of penalty proceedings under the pretext of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars u/s 271(1)(c). As the addition was made offered by appellant and accepted by AO does not mean that appellant is also agree for the penalty. Thus, in case of addition made on agreed basis penalty cannot be levied because addition was made because of concealment it was made for peace. 3.4. In support .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ulty encountered by him in securing necessary vouchers and receipts. That conduct of the assessee according to the Revenue was by itself sufficient to show that there was concealment. The Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705, has pointed out that not every case of nondisclosure warrants imposition of penalty as the assessee may forgo a deduction or offer higher sums for taxation for a hundred and one different reasons and all of them ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

held by the Tribunal to be relevant reasons. The question referred to us is therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In present case also appellant offered income because of non-corporation of party and his inability to prove transaction with supporting documents. But does not mean that there is concealment of income. 3.5. I further reply on following decisions for my view that penalty cannot be levied on addition made on agreed basis. a) CIT V/s Suaraj Bhan (2007) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing of the CIT(A) in the impugned order it is seen that the addition of ₹ 47,04,960/-, on the basis of which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer, was on account of undisclosed income on account of bogus purchases and sales. On an appreciation of the material on record we are inclined to concur with the view of the CIT(A) that the explanation put-forth by the assessee in the penalty proceedings was a plausible one, inasmuch as, the circumstances on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

593(SC) while considering the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act observed that the general principles of law in respect of penalty for concealment of income, does not grant the assessee automatic immunity from penalty on account of surrender or voluntary disclosure of income. As per the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate partic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssing Officer to delete the penalty levied in the case on hand for assessment year 2009-10. Consequently, Revenue s grounds raised at S.No.1 to 6 are dismissed. 3.4.2 Another contention of the assessee raised in the course of hearing before the Bench was that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act may be levied either for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and that the Assessing Officer is entitled to levy the penalty under the limib under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t. In these circumstances, it is contended that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case on hand is not sustainable. Even though this legal issue may not have been urged before the authorities below, since the same is a purely legal issue and all facts relating thereto are available on record. The same are admitted for adjudication before us in this appeal in keeping with the decision in the case of the Hon ble Apex Court in NTPC (229 ITR 383)(SC). There is no dispute wi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

decision in the case of Dharni .Developers (2015) (61 taxman.com 208), it has been held as under at para 6 and 7 thereof:- 6. The identical observations have been made by the Assessing Officer in other years under consideration also. Since the penalty notices are issued during the course of assessment proceedings, in our view, the said notices have to be read along with the assessment order. Accordingly, even if the Assessing Officer has failed to strike down anyone of the two defaults, the inte .....

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     ↓  

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Forum: Duty Drawback- Urgent

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities – Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under CGST Act

Highlight: Acceptance of deposits by companies from its members - conditions relaxed in case of Specified IFSC Public company and a private company - Rule 3 amended

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 8th September, 2017

News: Tax Payers Advised To Confirm Identities Of Income Tax Search Authorities

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

Forum: GST Invoice

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

Circular: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg.

News: GST implementation smoother than expected: Jaitley

Forum: GST - TRAN1 - filed - Data uploaded with Remarks Processed with Error - Not coming in Electronic credit ledger - need suggession guidance

Forum: 3B mistake

Forum: Input tax credit

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

Forum: Due date of Filing TRAN-1

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

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.

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



|| 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