Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
K.K. Motwani Huf, Mumbai vs Assessee on 5 November, 2013
ुं ई यायपीठ "ए" मब
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब ुं ई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND RAJENDRA (AM)
सव ी बी.आर. म तल, या यक सद य एवं राजे , लेखा सद य के सम
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.8782/Mum/2011
( नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2004-05)
K.K.Motwani (HUF) बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax -
501, Tulsiani Chambers, Vs. 12(3),
Nariman Point, Mumbai.
Mumbai-400021
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
थायी ले ख ा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AAEHM3362F
अपीलाथ ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Prakash Jotwani
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Surendra Kumar
सन
ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 5.11.2013
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 20.11.2013
आदे श / O R D E R
Per B.R.Mittal, JM:
Assessee has filed this appeal for assessment year 2004-05 against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 3.11.2011 on following grounds :
"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law :
1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/ concealment of income, in respect of valuation of closing stock"
2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee is in the business of property development. Assessee filed return of income on 30.10.2004 and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 22.12.2006 assessing total income at Rs.5,65,16,270/- as against declared total income of Rs.5,64,27,080/-. Later on, AO re-opened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice dated 25.3.2009 on the ground that income chargeable to tax had I.T.A. No.8782/Mum/2011 2 escaped assessment. Pursuant thereto, the AO made assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act assessing total income at Rs.5,99,16,270/- by making addition of Rs.34,00,000/- towards cost of five re-purchased flats in the closing stock. AO stated in the re-assessment proceedings that the assessee had re-purchased five flats and they remained unsold during the year. Although the assessee had debited the expenditure of Rs.34,00,000/- on account of re-purchase of the five flats it had not included the said amount in the closing stock valuation. Hence, AO added the amount of Rs.34,00,000/- relating to re-purchase price of the said five unsold flats ( Flat No.406 of Deep Apartments and Flat No.203,204,404 and 704 of Deep Towers) to the closing stock, thereby making addition to the total income of the assessee.
3. AO initiated penalty proceedings by issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 dated 17.6.2010
4. Assessee filed its reply stating interalia that there was no conscious and deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee. There was a mistake in valuation of closing stock to the extent of five flats which were cancelled and as such the assessee paid compensation of Rs.34,00,000/-. The assessee should have shown the value of flats at the cost + repurchased price instead of showing them at cost price. It was stated that the said flats were sold in subsequent years and while calculating profit, the cost of the flats had been considered at 'cost' and not at 'cost + repurchased price', therefore, profit arrived at had been offered for tax in the subsequent years viz assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. It was contended that assessee has neither concealed income nor has even made an attempt to conceal income.
5. AO after considering the submissions of the assessee, did not agree with the contention of the assessee and stated that assessee was in possession of the said five flats for the year ended 31.3.2004 but the assessee had not shown the cost of these flats at repurchased price in the closing stock which was mandatory on the part of the assessee to reflect in the closing stock and thus undervalued the closing stock. He has stated that the assessee's act of not disclosing the repurchase price of the five flats in the closing stock led to undervaluation of the closing stock and suppression of profit and thus did not show the true picture of the business profits of the assessee. This act of assessee led to reduction in the total income of assessee and thereby reducing his tax liability which amounts to filing of inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealing the income to the extent of non-inclusion of the repurchase price of the five I.T.A. No.8782/Mum/2011 3 flats into the closing stock. He has stated that the assessee agreed the default committed by him in his statement, which, confirms about his filing of inaccurate particulars of income to conceal the income to the extent of Rs.34,00,000/-. AO considered the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s Dharmendra Processors (306 ITR 277) and has stated that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c ) of the Act is a civil liability and willful concealment is not essential ingredient for attracting a civil liability as in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C of the Act.
6. In view of above, the AO has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) read with Explanation 1 of the Act of Rs.11,22,000/- which is 100% of the tax on the concealed income of Rs.34,00,000/-. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority.
7. On behalf of the assessee, the submissions were made on the lines of the submissions made before the AO. It was contended interalia that assessee when sold the said five flats in subsequent assessment years i.e. assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, it calculated profits by considering the cost of flats at 'cost' and not at 'cost + repurchased price'. Thus, the profits arrived at has been offered for tax in the year in which the flats are sold. It was contended that there was a genuine mistake without intention to conceal or suppress the taxable income and therefore, assessee should be treated as bonafide assessee and the penalty should not be levied. That the assessee admitted the mistake that it was not deliberate or willful. It was contended that the word 'false' involves an element of deliberateness and therefore the benefit of doubt is to be given to the assessee that the explanation furnished by the assessee has not been proved to be false. There was no intention of the assessee to conceal the income and only by oversight the re-purchased price was not included while valuing the closing stock as on 31.3.2004. That the mistake was due to lack of accounting expertise. No material was brought on record by the department to prove that the assessee had concealed its income by undervaluing the closing stock and thereby concealed the particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income within the meaning of section 271(1)( c ) of the Act. The assessee also placed reliance before the ld. CIT(A) on the following decisions :
i) CIT V/s Neelani Trading Automobile Agency (2007) 288 ITR 557 (Mad)
ii) H.P.State Forest Corp.Ltd V/s DCIT 94 TTJ 792
iii) CIT V/s Rose Lock Factory (1993) 204 ITR 753 (All)
iv) CIT V/s India Sea Foods (1996) 218 ITR 629 (FB)
v) ACIT V/s Akash Industries
vi) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt.Ltd V/s DCIT
vii) Godhwani Brothers V/s ACIT (1994) 48 TTJ (Del) 403 I.T.A. No.8782/Mum/2011 4
8. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee has confirmed the action of the AO vide para 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 which are as under :
"2.3.1 I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee had repurchased 5 flats which had remained unsold during the year and had debited the expenditure of Rs. 34 lakhs on account of repurchase of the flats in the profit and loss account as expenses. Therefore, as per law, the said amount was required to be included in the closing stock as on 31/03/2004, which the assessee failed to do. As a result, the value of the closing stock was suppressed by the amount of Rs.34 lacs, thereby leading to suppression of income to the extent of the said amount. The assessee has admitted to the non-inclusion of this amount in the closing stock only after the same was detected by the Assessing Officer. Hence, it is not in doubt that inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee to the extent of Rs.34 lacs as above leading to concealment of income to the extent of the above amount. Without doubt, the information given in the return was found to be incorrect and inaccurate.
2.3.2 In Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in order to expose the assessee to the penalty, the case is required to be strictly covered by the provisions and it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that reading the words "inaccurate" and "particulars" in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous Adverting to the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee did not disclose the correct value of the closing stock in its return of income. Hence, in view of the decision in Reliance Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., it is without doubt clear that the details supplied in the returns were not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth. Once the assessee had debited the expenditure on account of the repurchase of the flats, and the said flats had not been sold, as per the accounting principles and law, the said expenditure was required to be included as part of the closing stock. The assessee cannot claim that the same was omitted to be done by mistake. If the assessee had debited the expenditure, the next logical and simultaneous entry which was required to be made in the books was to give corresponding effect in the closing stock. This action of the assessee of not doing so, thereby showing lesser value of closing stock was totally untenable in law. The assessee cannot also claim that while it claimed the compensation as a deductible expenditure, it did not include the cost on account of compensation in the valuation of closing stock under some bonafide belief that the said amount was not to be included in the valuation of the closing stock. The assessee has also not been able to explain as to how this mistake could have been committed when simple principles of accountancy were involved and the assessee had the benefit of Chartered Accountants who have also audited its accounts. Before being detected by the Assessing Officer, neither the assessee filed a revised return nor requested the Assessing Officer to increase the valuation of the closing stock by filing revised computation of income. In the case of Zoom Communication Ltd reported in 327 1TR 510, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has, after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproduct Pvt Ltd (supra) held as follows:-
I.T.A. No.8782/Mum/2011 5 "The Court cannot overlook the fact that only a small percentage of the IT returns are picked up for scrutiny. If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bonafide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c). If one takes the view that a claim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee would not be liable to imposition of penalty, even if he was not acting bonafide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a license to unscrupulous assessees to make wholly untenable and unsustainable claims without there being any basis for making them, in the hope that their return would not be picked up for scrutiny and they would be assessed on the basis of self assessment u/s 143(1) and even if their case is selected for scrutiny, they can get away merely by payment the tax, which in any case, was payable by them. The consequence would be that the persons who make claims of this nature, actuated by a malafide intention to evade tax otherwise payable by them would get away without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect which these penalty provisions in the Act have. "
At para 23 and 24, it has been further held as follows :
"In the absence of the assessee company telling the AO as to who committed the oversight resulting in failure to add this amount while computing the income of the assessee, under what circumstances the oversight occurred and why it was not detected by those who checked the IT return before was filed and later by the auditors of the assessee company, one cannot accept the general view taken by the Tribunal. No such view could have reasonably been taken, on the facts and circumstances prevailing in this case and, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in this regard suffers from the vice of perversity. One cannot accept the general proposition that no person would ever claim the amount of income-tax as a deduction with a view to a void payment of tax. No hard and fast rule in this regard can be laid down and every case will have to be decided considered the facts and circumstances in which such a deduction is claimed, coupled with as to whether the explanation offered by the assessee for making the claim, is shown to be bonafide or not. The Tribunal therefore erred in law in deleting the penalty in respect of the amount of Rs. 1 lakh claimed as deduction on account of payment of income-tax and the amount of Rs. 13,24,539/- debited under the head 'Equipment written off in the P&L A/c of the assessee."
It is evident from the facts on records that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and the action of the assessee of not including the repurchase value of the flats in question in the closing stock is not only completely incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis for which no bonafide explanation has been offered by the assessee. Hence, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communications Ltd. (supra), the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is required to be levied in the case of the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading I.T.A. No.8782/Mum/2011 6 to concealment of income of Rs.34,00,000/-. The action of the Assessing Officer of levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the LT.Act 1961 is, therefore, upheld."
9. The ld. CIT(A) has also considered the case law in subsequent paras which were relied upon on behalf of the assessee before him and has stated that the said cases are not relevant to the facts of the case of assessee. We do not consider it necessary to deal with those cases and the distinction made by ld. CIT(A) in paras 2.3.4 to 2.3.11 save and except reproducing the relevant portion from the order of ld. CIT(A) (page 16) which is a under :
"Since the facts in the cases relied upon by the assessee are distinguishable from the facts in the case of the assessee, the reliance of the assessee on these cases is misplaced"
Hence, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO to levy penalty of Rs.11,22,000/- u/s 271(1)( c ) of Act. Being aggrieved, assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
10. During the course of hearing, ld. AR made his submissions on the lines of the submissions made before the authorities below. The ld. AR reiterated that in the assessment year 2005-06 the assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2005 by taking 'cost' price of the flats which were sold in that assessment year instead of taking the 'cost +re-purchase price' while considering the profit for the three flats sold. He further submitted that remaining two flats were sold in assessment year 2006-07 and the assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2006 and again had shown 'cost' price of the flats instead of taking 'cost + re-purchase price' while computing profit. He submitted that the assessee filed return for both the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. He submitted that there was no intention of the assessee to hide any profit in the assessment year under consideration and the assessee had also not taken double benefit while considering the original 'cost' price of the flats in the assessment year under consideration instead of considering 'cost +re- purchase price'. He submitted that no excessive deduction was claimed by assessee as the assessee paid the taxes in the subsequent assessment years as and when sale of flats finally took place. The ld. AR submitted that all the relevant details were disclosed by assessee in respect of the flats re-purchased and thus there is no concealment of income. Ld. AR referred the decision of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT V/s H.P.State Forest Corporation Ltd (2012)340 ITR 204(HP) and also the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench dated 30.7.2010 in the case of Spark Development P.Ltd V/s DCIT (AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09) and filed a copy of said order, I.T.A. No.8782/Mum/2011 7 which is placed on record. Ld. AR submitted that levy of penalty is not justified and same should be cancelled.
11. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below. He submitted that assessee did not show correct value of flats while computing the closing stock. That the intention of the assessee was to conceal his profit by undervaluing his closing stock with malafide intention. The ld. DR further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmendra Processors (supra) and submitted that intention is not relevant. Ld. DR also submitted that before AO detected the undervaluation of closing stock by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, neither assessee filed a revised return nor requested the AO to increase valuation of the closing stock by filing revised computation of income. He submitted that ld. CIT(A) vide para 2.3.2 considered the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158 and submitted that words "inaccurate" and "particulars" have been considered and stated that they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. Ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has stated categorically that the assessee did not disclose correct value of closing stock in his return of income. Hence, assessee filed inaccurate particulars of income. Ld. DR also referred the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom Communication (P) Ltd (2010) 327 ITR 510(Del) and submitted that case squarely apply to the case of the assessee. He submitted that the order of ld.CIT(A) be confirmed.
12. We have carefully considered the submissions of ld. Representatives of the parties and the orders of authorities below and also cases relied upon before us and also cases which have been considered by the authorities below in their orders.
12.1 There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee is in the business of property development. That the assessee constructed two buildings Viz "Deep Towers and Deep Apartments". Both are situated in Bombay. We observe that cost of construction per flat is Rs.1137.76 per sq. ft which is Rs.12,51,536/- per flat . We observe that in respect of "Deep Tower building" sale of four flats were canceled and they remained unsold during the year and the assessee paid Rs.24,00,000/- compensation. Similarly, in respect of "Deep Apartments" one flat remained unsold out of the cancelled flats and the assessee paid compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Thus, the assessee paid towards compensation for the said five flats which remained unsold during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration of Rs.34,00,000/-. There is no I.T.A. No.8782/Mum/2011 8 dispute to the fact that the said amount of Rs.34,00,000/- were debited in the profit and loss account but while filing closing stock as on 31.3.2004, the assessee did not reflect the said amount of Rs.34,00,000/- in the valuation of closing stock and showed only original cost price of the said flats. AO, when initiated re-assessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee admitted his mistake and stated that it was a bonafide mistake made by him. It was contended that there was no willful, deliberate intention to undervalue the closing stock of the unsold flats. The assessee also contended that when the said five flats were sold in subsequent assessment years i.e. three flats in assessment year 2005-06 and two flats in assessment year 2006-07, the assessee considered the original cost price while calculating the profits instead of considering the re-purchase price i.e. 'cost + amount of compensation' paid. Thus, there was no intention of the assessee to conceal the income and it was only a genuine mistake.
12.2 We observe that there is no dispute to the fact that while filing return of income for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has not disclosed the correct value of closing stock and it has resulted into escapement of income which was liable to tax to the extent of non-inclusion of re-purchase price of the five flats i.e. Rs.34,00,000/-. The assessee has admittedly debited in the profit and loss account the expenditure of Rs.34,00,000/- on account of re-purchase price of the said five flats , therefore, the assessee should have included in the closing stock as on 31.3.2004 the corresponding amount of Rs.34,00,000/-. The original assessment was also made. There is no dispute to the fact that tax on the said amount of Rs.34,00,000/- could be brought to tax only in the re-assessment proceedings. Prior to that, the assessee filed return for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the years in which the said five flats were sold and the assessee computed profit on sale of those flats . We agree with the ld. AR that the assessee has considered the original cost price while computing the profit but the said facts do not establish that the assessee could not reveal even at that stage that it had valued less cost of closing stock on 31.3.2004 particularly when the accounts of the assessee are to be audited and the said fact has been admitted only when the AO initiated re-assessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. It is a fact that the income which is assessable to tax in the assessment year 2004-05 has not been assessed correctly due to not furnishing the correct value of the closing stock. The assessee has pleaded that it was a bonafide mistake and there was no intention to conceal or suppress the taxable income and therefore, the penalty should not be levied. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Dharmendra Processors I.T.A. No.8782/Mum/2011 9 (supra) that the object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation is to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue and penalty under the said provision is civil liability. That willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that the words "inaccurate" and "particulars" must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. If we consider the said observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the facts of the case before us, the assessee has admittedly did not disclose the correct value of closing stock in the return filed for the assessment year under consideration and therefore, the assessee has not furnished the accurate, or correct particulars of his income particularly when the assessee debited the expenditure of Rs.34,00,000/- on account of purchase of the flats and when the said flats had not been sold at the end of accounting year relevant to the assessment year, the cost of flats was required to be included as part of the closing stock. We agree with ld. CIT(A) that the assessee cannot claim that the same was omitted due to bonafide mistake considering the fact that the assessee had debited the expenditure and the accounts of the assessee are audited by Chartered Accountants and therefore, simultaneous entry has to be made in the books to give corresponding effect in the closing stock to prepare a true and correct balance sheet. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has dealt with similar issue while considering that the assessee committed bonafide mistake in the case of Zoom Communication Ltd (supra). In the said case, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty levied by AO and confirmed by the First Appellate Authority by accepting the contention of the assessee that due to oversight bonafide mistake an error was committed by the assessee. That the same could not be the basis to levy penalty u/s 271(1)( c ) of the Act, specially when all the relevant material relating to that issue were disclosed by the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings. In the appeal filed by the department, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under :
"So long as the assessee has not concealed any material fact or the factual information given by him has not been found to be incorrect, he will not be liable to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even if the claim made by him is unsustainable in law, provided either he substantiates the explanation offered by him or the explanation, even if not substantiated, is found to be bona fide. If the explanation is neither substantiated nor shown to be bona fide, the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c ) would come into play and the assessee will be liable for the prescribed penalty. In that matter it was claimed by the assessee that due to oversight certain items were not added to total income.
I.T.A. No.8782/Mum/2011 10 The Court cannot overlook the fact that only a small percentage of the income- tax returns are picked up for scrutiny. If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. If one takes the view that a claim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation on which it could be made, the assessee would not be liable to imposition of penalty, even if he was not acting bona fide while making a claim of this nature, that would give a licence to the unscrupulous assessees to make wholly untenable and unsustainable claims without there being any basis for making them, in the hope that their return would not be picked up for scrutiny and they would be assessed on the basis of self-assessment under section 143(1) of the Act and even if their case is selected for scrutiny, they can get away merely by paying the tax, which, in any case, was payable by them. The consequence would be that the persons, who make claims of this nature, actuated by a mala fide intention to evade tax otherwise payable by them, would get away without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have.
We find that the assessee before us did not explain either to the Income-tax authorities or to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as to in what circumstances and on account of whose mistake, the amounts claimed as deductions in this case were not added, while computing the income of the assessee-company. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the assessee is a company which must be having professional assistance in computation of its income, and its accounts are compulsorily subjected to audit. In the absence of any details from the assessee, we fail to appreciate how such deductions could have been left out while computing the income of the assessee-company and how it could also have escaped the attention of the auditors of the company."
12.3 Hence in the background of the above discussion and considering the facts of the case before us, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income and the account of the assessee of not including the re-purchase value of the flats in question in the closing stock is not only incorrect in law but the explanation offered by the assessee is not escaped by Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Thus, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income leading the concealment of income of Rs.34,00,000/- We may state that the case cited by ld. AR viz. H.P.State Forest Corp.Ltd(supra) is not relevant to the fact of the case before us because in that case the assessee had claimed depreciation which was not accepted by Revenue and it was held that the it would not attract penalty u/s 271(1)( c ) of the Act. Similarly, in respect of the case of ITAT in the case of Spark Development P.Ltd (supra), the Tribunal was satisfied that there was a bonafide mistake on the fact of the case and there was no revenue loss to the exchequer but the case before us, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, it cannot be said that the mistake was bonafide. Hence the said cases are not applicable to the facts of the case of assessee before us.
I.T.A. No.8782/Mum/2011 11 12.4 In view of above, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) to confirm the action of AO of levying penalty u/s 271(1)( c ) of the Act at the 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on Rs.34,00,000/- which is Rs.11,20,000/-.
13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 20 th November, 2013 आदे श क घोषणा खुले यायालय म दनांकः 20 th November, 2013 को क गई ।
Sd/- sd/-
(राजे /RAJENDRA) (बी.आर. म तल/B.R.MITTAL)
लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
मब
ंु ई Mumbai: 20/11/2013
व. न.स./ SRL , Sr. PS
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. आयकर आयु त / CIT concerned
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब
ुं ई /
DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
True copy आदे शानस
ु ार/ BY ORDER,
सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar)
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब
ु ई /ITAT, Mumbai