9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Department under section 148” was not convincing - Adopting "Doctrine of continuity" and concurrence, the penalty in the assessee's case is liable to be confirmed only in the first assessment year - Decided against assessee for the first assessment year. - IT Appeal Nos. 1529 to 1540 (Mds.) of 2012 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2013 - Order This batch of 12 appeals filed at the behest of two different assessees namely, Dr. Bapuji Cherukuri and Dr. A.K. Pujari challenges penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the "Act") and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VI, Chennai vide different orders of even dated May 14, 2012. Both the representatives are unanimous that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer completed assessment vide order dated March 24, 2009 under section 143(3) of the "Act" disallowing the claim of the assessee's expenditure and computed his total income as Rs. 25,62,490. While finalising the assessment, the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee. Aggrieved by the disallowance, the assessee preferred appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide order dated March 24, 2009 granted part relief to the assessee by holding that his claim of expenditure was liable to be accepted at 30 per cent. of net receipt on estimation basis. The Department was not satisfied with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), wherein his arguments have been turned down vide impugned order. It is in this backdrop of the facts that the assessee has preferred the instant appeal before the Tribunal. At the behest of the assessee, the authorised representative has vehemently argued that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has wrongly affirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the "Act". In addition to this, he also reiterated various submissions raised in the grounds and prayed for acceptance of the appeal. Per contra, on behalf of the Revenue, the Departmental representative has strongly supported the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see's conduct during assessment always carries significance. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the assessee's argument that he is not guilty of concealment and furnishing of false and inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the "Act". There is also no issue between the parties that in the total there are six assessment years before us, i.e., assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02, 200203, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. Admittedly the investigation took place in February, 2006, i.e., during the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee had been continuing with this practice of alleged concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars in all the six assessment years. Therefore, in our considered opinion, sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
