9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the counsel, then assessee itself offered for the disallowance and has revised a computation. Thus, it cannot be held that the assesse had offered for disallowance only when assesse was cornered on specific issues relating to expenses. If the assessee offers any disallowance on its own volition without being confronted by with material or any query by the Assessing Officer then on such a disallowance no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) can be levied. Disallowance of expenses were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny for which assessee s case was selected and hence it cannot be held that simply because assessee s case was selected for scrutiny, therefore, assessee was persuaded for offering the disallowance of expenses. Under these facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he paragraph 2 of the assessment order:- 1. Low income in comparison to high loans/ advances/ investment in shares 2. Mismatch between income declared by remittee in ITR and amount of remittance received (Form 15CA) 3. Profits from business declared NIL in ITR despite of remittance(s) during the year 4. Investment in unlisted equities during the year. 4. As noted by the Assessing Officer that in the beginning of the assessment proceedings itself, assesse vide letter dated 19.04.2016 had revised the computation and declared the loss of ₹ 1,49,290/- instead of original loss declared in the return of income at ₹ 31,20,289/-. The reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 64,976/- on computers/printers etc. for maintaining the basic company. 5. The Assessing Officer accepted the said revised computation, however initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). In the penalty order, the Assessing Officer held that since assesse had no business during the year and no revenue was earned hence all the expenses offered by the assesse were not allowable on merit also. Accordingly, he levied the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and also concealment of income in respect of amount of ₹ 29,70,999/-. This penalty has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) also after observing and holding as under: 7.4 I have considered the facts of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer. Hence the plea of the Assessee that it suo moto revised computation of income, is baseless. The Assessing Officer recorded his satisfaction in the Assessment Order before the issue of the notice u/s 274 of the IT Act. As provided in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya referred to in above, the Income Tax Act does not provide a particular format for issue of the notice. The only requirement is to provide opportunity of being heard before passing the order. Therefore, I hold that the Assessing Officer rightly imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the Appellant are dismissed and the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is upheld. 6. Before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 20.02.2018. 2. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Mad.) order dated 23.04.2018. 3. CIT vs. Smt. Meera Devi (2012) 253 CTR 559 (Delhi) 8. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the material placed on record, we find that assesse has filed its return of income u/s. 139(1) declaring loss of ₹ 31,20,289/- filed digitally on 30.09.2014. As stated above, the assessee s case was selected for limited scrutiny on the points enumerated above and there was no reference of any allowability or otherwise verification of expenses. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 28.08.2015 and another notice u/s.142(1) dated 05.04.2016 was issued with certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
