9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is erroneous and bad in law. (ii) Because order of CIT (Appeals) confirming the penalty of Rs. 9,54,952/- is illegal. The penalty is liable to be cancelled. The assessee is a society and engaged in the activity of running educational institution. The assessee has filed its return of income on 12th February, 2008 declaring 'nil income'. There was a survey under Section 133 A of Income Tax Act at school and office premises of the assessee on 6.12.2006 during which certain facts were detected from the record of the assessee. The A.O. in the assessment proceedings noted that there a discrepancy in the student fee as shown by the assessee in the books of accounts in comparison to the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit. The Assessing Officer has estimated the fee receipt for the entire financial year on the basis of compilation of fee income for one month and multiplying by 12. Thus, the Ld. AR has contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is based on estimation of the income of the assessee and thereby the case of the assessee does not fall in the ambit of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. The Assessee Officer has estimated the fee receipt without considering the fact that for all the 12 months the receipt from the students is not uniformed but there are defaults and outstanding amounts in respect of the students who have left in between. The fee receipt recorded in the books of acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of under reporting of student fee during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer has given class wise details of the student fee per student and total amount in two tables at page no. 2 and 3 of the assessment orders as under; " at the time of survey, class wise students and their fees for one month S. No. Class No. of Section No.of Students Fees per Student Total Amount (Rs) 1 Pre Nursery 1 2 350 750 2 Nursery 1 17 350 5950 3 Prep. 1 23 350 8050 4 Class-1 1 43 625 16875 5 Class-2 1 36 625 22500 6 Class-3 1 44 625 27500 7 Class-4 1 46 765 35192 8 Class-5 1 49 765 37485 9 Class-6 1 50 775 38750 10 Class-7 1 59 775 45725 11 Class-8 2 71 775 55025 12 Class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the survey proceedings under Section 133 A of the Income Tax Act. Once the facts regarding the number of students and fee per student as recorded by the Assessing Officer are not in dispute then the estimation made by the Assessing Officer is not based on guesswork but it is the computation of the income on the basis of undisputed facts. There may be a discrepancy in the total quantum of the actual receipts due to the reason that there may be defaults on the part of the students in payment of fee or there may be drop out of the certain students. However, these facts had to be brought on record by the assessee to claim specific deduction on account of non receipt of the fee from the students. The assessee has not brought on record any mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computation of the fee by the Assessing Officer is based on the correct facts then the discrepancy in the fee shown by the assessee in the books would amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The explanation of assessee is not supported by any facts or details therefore, the said explanation cannot be regarded as bona-fide or reasonable when it is only to dispute the computation of the consolidated fee received by the assessee. There is no quarrel on the point that as per the explanation 1 to Section 271 (1) (c) the primary onus is on assessee to furnish the explanation which is bona-fide and reasonable and if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with such explanation the burden is shifted on the Assessing Officer to brin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
