Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Tirupati (Mahalaxmi) Cop Op Hsg Society ... vs Asst Cit 16(2 , Mumbai on 6 January, 2017
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई "ई" खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -"E"Bench Mumbai सव ी राजे ,लेखा सद य एवं सी. एन. साद, याियक सद य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C. N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5924/Mum/2013 ,िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year:2000-01 M/s. Tirupati (Mahalaxmi) Co-Op. Hsg. ACIT -16(2) Society Ltd."Ashish" Tirupati Appts. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Bhulabhai Desai Rd. Vs. Mumbai-400 034.
Mumbai-400 026.
PAN:AAAAT 4093 R
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ / Respondent)
राज
व क ओर से / Revenue by: Ms. Anupama Singh-DR
अपीलाथ क ओर से /Assessee by: None
सुनवाई क तारीख / Date of Hearing: 16/11/2016
घोषणा क तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 06.01.2017 लेखा सद , राजे के अनुसार/ PER Rajendra A.M.-
Challenging the order dated 23/07/2013 of the CIT (A)-28, Mumbai the assessee-Cooperative Housing Society has filed the present appeal. The assessee had not filed any return for the year under appeal. A survey u/s. 133A was carried out by the investigation wing of the Department. The AO issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act.In response, it filed the return on 06/06/ 2007,declaring total loss of Rs. 6.87 lakhs.The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment on 03/12/2007, u/s.143(3)r.w.s.147 of the Act,assessing its total income at Rs.10, 61,000/-. He observed that the assessee had adjusted income which was received during the year again certain expenses, that the adjustments were not allowable.The AO made three additions i.e hoarding charges(Rs. 4.20 lakhs), sale of scrap (Rs. 46, 000/-) and sundry creditors not payable (Rs.3.70 lakhs).He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income.The additions made by the AO were confirmed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA).The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and its appeal was partly allowed.
2.During the penalty proceedings,the assessee was given opportunity to file explanation with regard to levy of penalty.As per the AO, the assessee did not make any submissions till the passing of the penalty order. He observed that it had filed return of loss after the survey and after issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act,that it had deliberately tried to convert its non-mutual income has mutual income, that it further tried to play mutual expenses as direction, that it 5924-Tirupati had furnished inaccurate particulars of income.Finally,he levied a penalty of Rs. 6.68 lakhs u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
3.In the appellate proceedings before the FAA the assessee made submissions and argued that the Tribunal had given partial relief to the assessee,that the Tribunal had held that hoarding charges should be assessed under the head of property income and not under the head income from other sources, that the Tribunal had set aside the issue of applying the provisions of section 41 (1) of the Act to the file of the AO. After considering the submission of the assessee,assessment order and the penalty order, the FAA observed that during the appellate proceedings the assessee had not given any specific detail on the basis of which it could be said that what was mentioned in the penalty order regarding opportunity of being heard was factually inaccurate, that the Tribunal had given partial relief to the assessee, that the assessee had claimed income from holding charges and sale of scrap was exempt income on the principles of mutuality, that the assessee had not established that the claim made by it was bona fide,that it had not filed any return of income,that it was only after a survey was conducted and notice u/s. 148 was issued that the assessee filed its return, that it made unsustainable claims.He directed the AO to re-compute the penalty in the light of the directions of the Tribunal.
4.Before us,none appeared on behalf of the assessee and application for adjourning the matter was also not filed. Considering these facts we are deciding the appeal on the basis of available material and after hearing the ld. DR .As nothing has been brought on record to prove that order of the FAA suffered from any legal or factual infirmity,so,confirming the same,we decide the effective ground of appeal against the assessee.
As a result,appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. फलतः िनधा रती ारा दािखल क गई अपील नामंजूर क जाती है.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06th January, 2017. आदेश क घोषणा खुले यायालय म दनांक 06 जनवरी, 2017 को क गई ।
(सी. एन. साद / C. N. Prasad) (राजे
/ Rajendra)
Sd/- Sd/-
याियक सद
य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai; दनांकDated : 06 .01.2017.
Jv.Sr.PS.
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.Appellant /अपीलाथ 2. Respondent / यथ
3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब अपीलीय आयकर आयु , 4.The concerned CIT /संब आयकर आयु 2 5924-Tirupati
5.DR "A " Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /िवभागीय ितिनिध, खंडपीठ,आ.अ. याया.मुंबई
6.Guard File/गाड फाईल स यािपत ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst. Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai.
3