Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (4) TMI 736

particular provision might be attracted for addition to the income of the assessee. But when it comes to the question of imposition of penalty, then independently of the finding arrived at in the quantum proceedings, the authority has to find conclusively that the assessee owns the concealed amount. - See Durga Kamal Rice Mills [2003 (4) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA High Court] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 694/Mum/2015 - Dated:- 21-3-2018 - SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM AND SHRI N.K PRADHAN, AM For The Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Choksi, A.R. For The Respondent : Shri V. Justin, D.R. ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumb .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

received under Sec. 148, requested vide a letter dated 28.04.2010 that its return of income filed on 17.04.2008 may be treated as the return filed in compliance to the notice issued under Sec. 148. Subsequently, notices under Sec. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee on being called upon by the A.O to explain the nature and source of the amounts credited in its bank accounts, submitted that it was involved in the business of facilitating and providing accommodation entries and as proved during the course of the Search and seizure action conducted on 25.11.2009 the aforesaid amounts belonged to the beneficiaries to whom accommodation entries were provided by it. The as .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

another Show cause notice, dated 22.01.2013. The explanation furnished by the assessee that no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was called for in its case, however, did not find favour with the A.O, who holding a conviction that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Sec. 271(1)(c) and that the assessee was a habitual defaulter, imposed a penalty of ₹ 12,000/- under Sec.271(1)(c). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order of the A.O imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after deliberating on the facts of the case by a consolidate order dated. 14.11.2014 passed in 31 appeals in the case of the assessee and its group concerns/entities, dismissed the appe .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

04 remained the same as were involved in its case for the aforementioned years, viz. A.Ys. 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08, therefore, the case was squarely covered. It was thus submitted by the ld. A.R that the order of the CIT(A) upholding the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) was liable to be vacated. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short D.R ) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We have perused the orders of the coordinate bench and SMC of the Tribunal passed in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2004-05 and A.Ys 2005-06 and 2007-08, respectively .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

e under consideration the Tribunal had held that commission income should be taken at the rate of 0.15% (ITA 6435/Mum/2012 - AY-2004-05 and other six appeals (dt. 6.1 .16). The undisputed fact is that there is difference of opinion as to how much income should be estimated for the hawala entries the AO estimated at a particular percentage, whereas the assessee had shown the income at a different percent. The addition made by the A.O and conf irmed by the FAA in quantum addition may or may not be. But, levying penalty on the basis of an estimated addition could not be held to be justified. No authority is required to be cited that penalty and assessment proceedings are separate and distinct proceedings and the quantum proceedings should no t .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

he A.O dismissed the appeal and held that the f inding arrived a t b y the Tribunal did not warrant interference as it was purely a finding of fact. In the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills (265 ITR 25) the Hon ble Calcutta High Court has held as under: When two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be dawn, in a penalty proceeding penalty cannot be imposed.…in quantum proceedings, a particular provision might be attracted for addition to the income of the assessee. But when it comes to the question of imposition of penalty, then independently of the finding arrived at in the quantum proceedings, the authority has to find conclusively that the assessee owns the concealed amount. Considering the fact that Tribun .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||