9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... callous in his approach to the statutory notices issued and there was failure to comply with such notices. In the circumstances and facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders of both the Assessing Officer as well as of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we uphold the same as correct and in accordance with law. Thus all the grounds of the assessee are dismissed. - ITA No. 238/Coch/2015 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2016 - B. P. Jain, Accountant Member and George George K., Judicial Member T.M. Sreedharan, Sr. Adv. for the Assessee A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR. for the Revenue ORDER Per B. P. Jain, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Kochi dated 30/06/2014 confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty is the assessment for the broken period from 21/09/2001 to 31/03/2002 which was made on estimate basis and not with reference to any seized documents. 5. A perusal of the assessment records show that the income was determined on estimate basis which has been modified more than once. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the assessment made on estimate basis cannot provide basis for penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). 7. At any rate, the CIT(A) should have followed the Order of the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal against the Order u/s. 158BFA(2) in as much as the ingredients for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and 158BFA(2) are the same. 8. Without prejudice to the above, it is further submitted that the quantum o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 12/01/2005 for hearing on 24/01/2005. The Assessing Officer in his order dated 31/03/2008 by which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was imposed, further noticed that the assessee while appearing in connecting with some other matter on 25/01/2005, informed that he had not received the above notice for appearance on 24/01/2005. Therefore, the case was reposted for hearing on 14/02/2005 as requested. But the assessee did not respond. However, the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income at ₹ 2,58,500/- on 15/02/2005. The subsequent notices were not responded by the assessee and finally, the assessment came to be completed u/s. 144 on 03/03/2005, since the assessee had failed to comply with the provisions of Sec. 139, 142(1) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed order dated 30/06/2014. The Ld. CIT(A) in paragraph 4.3 of the order has referred to the quantum of income concealed as adopted by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 12,10,400/- and the final income that has been determined as a result of subsequent Appellate proceedings in the quantum appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to work out penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) based on the final income for the year as determined in the quantum assessment proceedings and imposed penalty at three times of the tax sought to be evaded. 9. Aggrieved by the above Appellate Order, the assessee has filed this second appeal. In the Memorandum of Appeal vide Ground No. 4, the assessee has referred to the penalty proceedings initiated u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d relied upon the orders of both the authorities below. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We are not inclined to accept the case pleaded before us in view of the findings in the order levying penalty, which we have quoted above and the facts and findings on record confirming the penalty by the Ld. CIT(A). Admittedly, the assessee has acted in total disregard of the statutory obligations and has not co-operated in the assessment proceedings and has driven the Assessing Officer for making the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. The assessee had also courted the penalty u/s. 271B as well as the penalty u/s. 271(1)(e) which were also appealed against before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the same. Thus ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
