9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. When this appeal was called for hearing, neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application seeking adjournment filed. Therefore, we proceed to dispose off this appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative ('learned DR') and on the basis of material available on record. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: "i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs.88,150/-. ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred In holding that the appellant had intentionally claimed wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act on the basis that the conditions laid down in section 36(2) of the Act are not satisfied. 6. Meanwhile, the penalty proceedings vide notice dated 21/12/2016, issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. The Assessing Officer ('AO') vide penalty order dated 09/06/2017, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied a penalty of Rs. 88,155, on the basis that no justification with regard to the satisfaction of conditions laid down under section 36(2) was furnished by the assessee and thus, the assessee has deliberately tried to evade tax. 7. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order on the basis that the assessee has not satisfied the conditions of section 36(2) of the Act. 10. From the statement of facts filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), we find that the assessee made the following submissions in respect of its claim under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act: "Suryakant Mayakar The Company has told its vehicle to Suryokant Mayekar towards the union leader of employee of the company for a lumpum consideration of Rs. 93,333/- the amount remained unpaid since 23-12-2010 and it being not realizable in the due course of business the same has been w/olf during FY 2013-14. Vikrant Palit On 03-05-2011 an advance of Rs. 11,000/- was paid to one Mr. Vikram Patil as a staff loan. The amount remai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its decision of writing off the same during the year under consideration. We find that the AO did not agree with the aforesaid factual explanation and made the addition disallowing the claim under section 36(1)(vii) r/w section 36(2) vide its order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. We further find that neither the AO nor the learned CIT(A) in the penalty proceedings, found the assessee's explanation to be incorrect or without any basis. The Revenue also did not bring anything on record to controvert the aforesaid submission. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee has not challenged the addition made vide the assessment order. However, at the same time, it is well established that quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
