9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. This appeal is listed for today as the 22nd time of hearing. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even in the previous hearings none appeared in spite of service of notice to the assessee. 3. The Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue submitted that even the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2583/Ahd/2014 was dismissed for non-appearance by the assessee vide order dated 09/11/2017 which reads as follows: This assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, arises from order of the CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad dated 27-03-2014, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee. Last notice of hearing was sent to the assessee on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is seen from the quantum appeal order in ITA No. 2583/Ahd/2014 in assessee's own case for the very same Assessment Year 2010-11, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. 4.1. Further the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on merits of the case is as follows: 4. Decision: I have gone through the penalty order of the AO and submission filed by the appellant carefully. The appellant has submitted that the penalty order is suffering from certain discrepancies and the appellant had derived agriculture income of Rs. 17,18,470/- which has been ignored. The appellant has deposited cash of Rs. 50,01,970/- for which particulars were not filed alongwith return of income. Similarly, there was addition on account of unexplained investments in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be imposed because the assessee has taken a particular stand or had preferred an interpretation which was plausible and reasonable, but has not been accepted, unless the assessee had not disclosed facts before the authorities. Such cases have to be distinguished from cases where the claim of the assessee is farcical or farfetched. Dubious and fanciful claims under the garb of interpretation, are a mere pretense and not bonafide. Similarly, the appellant can't get benefit of land mark Supreme Court judgment in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein in the last para of judgment it has been stated,........... wherein there is no findings by the assessing officer for the inaccurate particulars or concealment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Mohammad Ibrahim Azimulla 131 ITR 680 (AIL). Concealment means an attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the income tax authorities, held in case of CIT Vs. Mahabit Prasad Bajaj 298 ITR 109(Jhar). The A.O. has initiated penalty perfectly as per provisions of the IT. Act, 1961 and has only imposed penalty of 100% of amount payable on concealed income for which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. It is not the case where appellant made certain claims in the return of income which were found to be not allowable subsequently during assessment proceedings, rather it is a case where additions have been made on certain facts which came to surface only during the examination of record by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
