9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. In the assessment order Ld. AO initiated both the limbs, i.e; concealment and filing of inaccurate particulars. We therefore do not agree with the argument advanced by Ld. AR alleging the validity of notice issued under section 274. Assessee filed revised balance sheet after reconciling/explaining the credits in the above said accounts. The assessment order was then passed after verifying all the details by making an addition on account of unaccounted contract receipts amounting to ₹ 7 lakhs. By producing bank accounts, assessee had displaced the presumption that failure to return the correct income had arisen from any fraud or gross or willful neglect. We also note that no specific addition had been made in the assessment ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : S. Srinivas Kamath, C.A. For the Respondents : Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR) ORDER Beena Pillai, Member (J) 1. Present appeals have been filed by assessee against separate orders dated 22/03/2019 passed by Ld. CIT (A), Mangalore for assessment year 2014-15 on following grounds of appeal: 1. The Assessment order and CIT order are against the law, facts, figures and circumstances of the case. ₹ 2,16,300/- 2. The authorities below erred in levying/confirming Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) without considering the facts of the case and not giving proper opportunity of being heard. ₹ 2,16,300/- 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Aggrieved by the penalty levied, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT (A). 5. Ld. CIT(A) while considering the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the act observed that assessee had not disclosed the bank accounts which had credited of ₹ 80,11,8000/- and ₹ 28,90,093/-. It was noted that pursuant to such nondisclosure during assessment assessee had offered a sum of ₹ 7 lakhs as income from the said unaccounted contract received. Assessee has submitted before Ld. CIT (A) that the said to accounts were inadvertently missed out and it was not a deliberate act. Ld. CIT(A) held this submission/explanation of assessee to be self-serving and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. While cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling of inaccurate particulars. He argued that primarily the penalty is initiated for concealment and while passing the penalty order, penalty is levied for concealment of income. He submitted that as both the limbs were initiated by Ld. AO and the assessment order, non-striking of is a relevant. Ld. Sr. DR relying on decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra), submitted that para 63 deals with various facets of notice under section 274 and circumstances when the notice issued could be considered to be bad. Ld. Sr. DR taking support of decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra), argued that the manner in which penalty has been in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Ld. AR alleging the validity of notice issued under section 274 of the Act. 14. Coming to the merits of the case, Ld. AR submitted that, the amount added for nondisclosure of accounts is based on estimation. We note that during assessment proceedings are to bank account came to the notice of assessee and the same was placed before Ld. AO. It is also noted that assessee filed revised balance sheet after reconciling/explaining the credits in the above said accounts. The assessment order was then passed after verifying all the details by making an addition on account of unaccounted contract receipts amounting to ₹ 7 lakhs. By producing bank accounts, assessee had displaced the presumption that failure to return the correct income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is noted that, time period for filing audit report was extended to 13/11/2014 for relevant period under consideration and therefore the delay in uploading the audit report was 3 months. 22. We note that there has not been assessee has never been held for such default in the preceding years as noted by Ld. AO. We also note that the reason submitted by assessee for the delay in filing of audit report was due to ill-health during the relevant period. There is nothing on record to prove anything contrary by revenue, to what has been submitted by assessee before authorities below or before us. 23. We do not find the conduct of assessee to be malafide under such circumstances. Ld. AO at the time of assessment proceedings had the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
