9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for further time, when in fact M/s Todarwal & Todarwal, Chartered Accountant for Appellant had sent a letter for the same on 09th April 2012 and the same was not accepted by the learned CIT(A). 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the various case laws cited in submission dated 15th March, 2012 by M/s Todarwal & Todarwal, Chartered Accountants on behalf of the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,95,989/- u/s 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax act, 1961. 4. She further erred in holding that the disallowance was a case of concealment and that the assessee had furnished in accurate particulars of income. 5. She failed to appreciate that no penalty was levying u/s 271(1)(C), in the said matter. 6. The Appellant prays that the penalty of Rs. 2,95,989/- u/s 271(1)(C) be deleted". 5. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO made the addition on account difference in opening and closing stock at Rs. 1,58,500/- as there was no trading activity. The AO also disallowed Rs. 3,34,399/- claimed as bad debts and Rs. 1,78,345/- on account of travelling, telephone, electricity, business development expenses and maintenance charges. 6. These disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, Chartered Accountants on behalf of the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,80,375/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax act, 1961. 4. She further erred in holding that the disallowance was a case of concealment and that the assessee had furnished in accurate particulars of income. 5. She failed to appreciate that no penalty was levying u/s 271(1)(C), in the said matter. 6. The Appellant prays that the penalty of Rs. 1,80,375/- u/s 271(1)(C) be deleted". 17. The facts pertaining to addition made and penalty levied are i) "During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO had observed that the firm had debited office rent at Rs. 1,20,000/-for the use of office premises at 304-B, Manish Commercial Building, Worli. However, it was observed from the records that the firm had given office address as 161-C, Mittal Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai. To substantiate the claim, the assessee firm filed confirmation from Anika Gupta and Avantika Gupta, having received Rs. 10,000/- per month each for the use of premises at Manish Commercial Bldg. which were signed by Mr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, the partner of the firm in the capacity as natural guardian. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiate. 19. The facts on which the additions were made and penalty imposed are, "During A.Y. 1998-99, the assessee firm had a godown, being taken on rent from M/s. Diana Soap. The assessee firm incurred expenses of Rs. 4,43,789/- for the repairs of the godown. The Assessing Officer has disallowed repairs and maintenance expenses of Rs. 4,43,789/- on the ground that there was error in the address which was later rectified by the contractor. The assessee was under the bona fide belief that the expenses are allowable. The assessee was using the premises as s warehouse and income from warehousing was treated as business income in previous years". and "The appellant had paid rent of Rs. 5,000I- per month to Avantika Gupta and Rs. 5,000/- per month to Anika Gupta. The agreement pertaining to lease of premises at Manish Building was over. Confirmation from the owner that premises was rented were produced before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has raised the issue of two premises 304 B and 304 C. He failed to appreciate that both 304 B and 304 C together form only one premise and which has been taken on rent by the appellant. The secretary of Manish Commercial Centre was as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act was duly served to the Secretary of Manish Commercial Centre, no reply received from the society till date, in respect of - i) Name of the owners of Flat No.304B and 304C ii) Confirmation whether the flat were given on lease iii) Name of the concern carrying out business from flat No.304B and 304C. The Assessing Officer held that the claim of rent of assessee firm is not found genuine for the reasons discussed as under: i) There was no rent agreement between M/s Gaurisons and Ms. Avantika & Ms. Anika Gupta ii) The assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence to show/prove at Manish Commercial Centre. iii) As per the confirmation there are two flats bearing Nos. 304B and 304C given on lease to M/s Gaurisons but as per ITAT' order it is seen that only Flat No. 304B was given on rent to M/s Gaurisons. iv) The confirmation of Shri Dilbersingh Negi, watchman of Society, not bearing any date or not mentioned the specific premises of Manish Commercial Centre from which Shri Sushil Gupta partner of M/s Gaurisons carried out the business. v) There was no information in respect of Flat No. 304B, in the reply received from Smt. Anjana Gupt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
