9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 4,90,125/- and claimed a refund of Rs. 8,94,050/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In the regular assessment following expenditures were disallowed by the Assessing Officer:- (a) Disallowance of expenses of Rs. 1,47,527/- being prior period expenses. (b) Disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54 of the Act of Rs. 5,70,95,075/-. (c) The assessee has claimed Cost of improvement/indexed cost of improvement and Assessing Officer observed that assessee has obtained valuation report from the registered valuer and as per the value determined, total value of cost of construction and improvement at Rs. 1,28,14,764/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeded to impose the penalty of Rs. 6,91,583/- being 100% of the tax alleged to have concealed taxable income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal:- "1) That the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Center is arbitrary, biased and bad in law and facts of the case. 2) That the Learned National Faceless Appeal Center has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs 6,91,583/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3) That the Learned Nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y inadvertently claimed Rs. 1,71,12,909/-. He submitted that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer does not call for levy of penalty. In this regard, he relied on the following case laws:- (i) New Sorathia Engg. Co. vs. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Gujrat) (ii) CIT vs. Lakhdhir Lalji 85 ITR 77 (Guj). (iii) CIT vs. Kejriwal Iron Stores 168 ITR 715 (Raj.) (iv) CIT vs. Reliance Petropruducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (v) CIT vs. Nepani Biri Co. Trust (1991) 190 ITR 402, 403 (All.) (vi) Pankaj Kumar Gupta vs. Ito (ITAT Lucknow) ITA No.486/LKW/2016. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the findings of the lower authorities. 10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, I observed that Assessing Officer h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale of property. However, when he received notice under section 148 of the Act, he was very eager to know what mistake has been committed by him and, therefore, he himself attended the hearing before the Assessing Officer and on coming to know about the amount of tax payable, has immediately paid tax on the same date. He has not even challenged the assessment order and has accepted the assessment as passed by the Assessing Officer and paid due tax. Therefore, there is no loss to the Revenue. The Assessing Officer as well as the Id. CIT(A) were of the opinion that if the notice under section 148 of the Act was not issued, then assessee would have got away with the tax evasion and, therefore, penalty was levied. The spirit of section 271 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
