Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (2) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at assessee has promised to pay outstanding self-assessment tax by 31.12.2012 and paid most of the amount by that date. Though, the assessee has not completed his entire liability by 31.12.2012, however, completed by 15.01.2013, therefore, the observations of AO that the assessee has not fulfilled his obligation to pay tax is not correct. The assessee has paid till 31.12.2012 an amount of ₹ 3,77,00,000/- and remaining balance of ₹ 47,76,310/- was paid on 15.01.2013. The ld. CIT(A) also considered the financial constraint of the assessee and observed that the contentions of the assessee that non-deposit of admitted tax liability due to the delay in receipt of payment from MCGM appears to be correct and the assessee tried his best .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... non-payment of self-assessment tax, the assessee was deemed to be assessee in default in respect of tax and interest as both remained unpaid in accordance with the provisions of section 140A(3) of the Act. The AO directed the assessee to make the payment of self-assessment tax vide notice dated 09.11.2012. Along with the direction for selfassessment tax, a show-cause notice u/s 221(1) was also issued asking the assessee as to why penalty should not be levied. The assessee contested the proceedings and filed his reply dated 12.11.2012. In reply, the assessee contended that he had supply School Bags to by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and his huge amount of ₹ 16 Crore. The said amount is blocked MCGM from last three mon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat assessee approached Shri Pradip N. Kapasi, C.A. in the first week of August 2015 and after advice of C.A. assessee decided to file C.O. 4. On application for condonation of delay, we have heard ld. AR of the assessee and ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the contents of application under affidavit filed in support of condonation of delay application. The ld. AR of the assessee argued that assessee has good case on merit and there is likelihood to succeed the assessee on merit. There was no intentional delay on the part of assessee. Main delay occurred due to forming of opinion and consulting legal grounds. It was further argued that though the assessee approached his CA in First week of August 2015, but the C.O. could be filed only .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the return of income. The assessee further failed to pay the amount of due tax despite the notice of initiation of penalty. The assessee was casual in following the provisions of law. The AO before levying the penalty issued a showcause notice and the penalty was levied after giving the opportunity and considering the contentions of the assessee. The ld. DR for the Revenue prayed that order of AO be restored by setting-aside the order passed by ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, ld. AR for assessee argued that on receipt of notice from AO u/s 221(1), the assessee requested vide his application dated 12.11.2012 and prayed that assessee would make entire due outstanding for assessment year 2012-13 maximum by 31.12.2012. The ld. AR of the assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of liability saddled upon him. There was no intentional or deliberate default on the part of assessee. In support of Cross Objections it was argued by the ld. AR of the assessee the 10% penalty sustained by ld. CIT (A) may also be deleted. 7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and seen the order of authorities below. The AO issued notice to the assessee on 09.11.2012. The assessee immediately filed his reply vide reply dated 12.11.2012. The assessee explained the circumstances that huge amount of ₹ 16 Crore of payment was blocked by MCGM and further amount was not paid by MSCCF. The assessee also made the request to the AO, for not to resorting to the co-ercive measures. The contention of the assessee was not a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates