9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed, inter alia, expenses to the tune of Rs.3,13,286/- on account of screen design and frame charges, Rs.87,499/- on account of building repairs and maintenance expenses and Rs.1,65,797/- on account of repairs on plant and machinery. On verification of the details filed by assessee, AO observed that claim of above expenses are without any basis or evidence. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act determining the total income of Rs.50,96,350/- on 27.1.2006, inter alia, making the following disallowances: 1) Disallowance made out of screen designs and frames : Rs.3,13,286 2) Disallowance made out of buildings, re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bills and vouchers in support of these expenses claimed is produced neither during the assessment proceedings nor in appeal. No such details and evidences are produced even during the penalty proceedings either before the AO or in appeal. Therefore, on account of the same to my considered opinion the deeming provisions of explanation-(1) to section 271(1)(c) are duly attracted or satisfied in the case of the appellant. Therefore, I find that the AC is fully justified for the !e/y of penalty in the case of appellant u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. All the case laws cited by the AR as part of the written submissions due to distinguishable facts reported therein, are not applicable in the case of the appellant." Hence, this appeal by assessee. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnishing of any wrong particulars of facts and, therefore, levy of penalty is not justified and placed reliance on the decision dated 14.8.2012 of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/.s. Aditya Birla Nova Ltd., 2012 -TIOL-692-HC-MUM-IT. He referred page 20 of PB, which contain letter dated 30.5.2011 allegedly filed by assessee addressed to CIT(A) stating that details of expenses alongwith the vouchers of the amount which were disallowed during course of assessment proceedings, were enclosed but ld CIT(A) did not discuss the same. Ld A.R. submitted that levy of penalty is not justified. 8. On the other hand, ld D.R. supported the orders of authorities below. He submitted that ld CIT(A) in his order has stated empathetically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claimed, they were nothing but false claim of the assessee. Hence, levy of penalty is justified. 9. We have considered submissions of ld representatives of parties and orders of authorities below as well as reliance placed by ld A.R. 10. Before penalty can be levied u/s. 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer should be satisfied that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) is rule of evidence can contemplate such a situation where it will be admitted that the assessee had concealed the particulars in respect of his income. These are (a) person fails to offer an explanation (b) the assessee offers an explanation which is found to be false ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
