9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to support of its stand that it was not having liquid funds. Hence, we are of the view that the assessee has failed to furnish any good and sufficient reason for non-payment of self assessment tax. As the assessee has paid the self assessment tax before March, 2011, i.e., within five months from the date of filing of return of income. Under these set of facts, the penalty @ 5% of self assessment tax confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) also appears to be on the higher side. Hence, in order to put this matter to rest, we are of the view that the penalty to be levied u/s 221(1) of the Act should be restricted to 2.5% of the self assessment tax. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.505/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 3-6-2015 - SHRI B.R.BA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment tax subsequent to the filing of the return of income as per details given below: Date of payment Amount 15.02.2011 1,00,00,000 18.02.2011 3,00,00,000 12.03.2011 50,00,000 25.03.2011 50,00,000 26.03.2011 50,00,000 29.03.2011 2,00,00,000 30.03.2011 1,58,54,474 Total 9,08,54,474 The assessee s explanation was that though it earned good profit during the year under consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition of the company is sound and the self assessment tax was not paid only on account of indifferent attitude of the assessee. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) expressed his view that he could not find good and sufficient reason for not paying self assessment tax in time. However, since he found that the penalty levied at 10% was on higher side, the ld.CIT(A) reduced it to 5% of the self assessment tax. 7. Before us, the Ld A.R placed strong reliance on the submissions made before the tax authorities and also on the decision rendered by the coordinate bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Kamala Mills Ltd (ITA No. 7775 to 7777/Mum/2004 dated 31.10.2007). He submitted that the co-ordinate bench in the above said case has deleted the penalty levied u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason furnished by the assessee for non-payment of tax was that it was not having liquid funds and all its funds were locked in shares and securities. However, the Ld CIT(A) has expressed the view in paragraph 4.10 of his order that the financial position of the assessee is sound, since it had made huge investment in shares and also by way of providing loans. In any case, the assessee did not furnish any document either before us or before the tax authorities to support of its stand that it was not having liquid funds. Hence, we are of the view that the assessee has failed to furnish any good and sufficient reason for non-payment of self assessment tax. 11. Though the co-ordinate bench has held in the case of Kamala Mills Ltd (supra) tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
