Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: cpt :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment :: form 3cd :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: empanelment :: TDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India
« From the Courts »
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs
 ransfers Of Hon’ble Members Of The ITAT (September 2016)
 M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Haryana State Road & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (P&H High Court)
 Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Prakash G. Kewalramani 301, Deja Vu Apts. 77, Hill Road Bandra (W) Mumbai-400 050 Vs.The ACIT-19(1) Mumbai.
April, 29th 2015
                        ,       ,   
           Before S/Sh. I P Bansal,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member
             /.ITA No.6210/Mum/2010,  /Assessment Year-2005-06

                Prakash G. Kewalramani                       The ACIT-19(1)
                301, Deja Vu Apts.                           Mumbai.
                77, Hill Road
                Bandra (W)
                Mumbai-400 050.
               ( /Appellant)                                 (    / Respondent)

                      /Assessee by                       :Shri Gopal P. Naik
                         / Revenue by                    :Shri Premanand J.
                         / Date of Hearing                            :28 - 04 -2015
                         / Date of Pronouncement                      : 28 -04-2015
                      , 1961   254(1)                           
                      Order u/s.254(1)of the Inco me-tax Act,1961(Act)
                           PER RAJENDRA, AM:
    Challenging the order dt.18/05/2010 of the CIT(A)-30- Mumbai, the assesseee has raised
    following Grounds of Appeal:

           I) The learned A.O has erred in levying penalty u/s.271 (1 )© and the honorable CIT-
           A 30 erred in dismissing the appeal on the following grounds.
           a) Both of them failed to appreciate the fact that the amount of Rs.18,10,000/
           showed less was earned by Impact Management Services owned by the spouse of the appellant
           b } The sai d am ount wa s deduct ed from gr oss pr ofe ssi onal rec ei pt a nd cr ed ite d
           t o the sp ouse account in the hooks of appellant
           c)The appellant readily agreed to include this amount to his total income
           a s t h e s p o u s e assessment had been completed without considering this amount as
           suggested by the A.O during the assessment proceedings.
           The appellant reserves its right to add,delete,modify the grounds of the appeal
           preferred as above.
    Assessee,an individual and proprietor of M/s.Impact Management & Personnel Services,is
    engaged in the business of manpower recruitment and management consultancy.He filed his
    return of income on 30.10.2005,declaring total income of Rs.19,62,805/- .The Assessing Officer
    (AO) completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 31/12/2007,determining the income of
    the assessee at Rs.38,73,345/-.

    2.Effective ground of appeal is about the imposition of penalty u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Act,
    amounting to Rs.6,09,250/-.During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that the assessee
                                                                                  6210/M/10 Prakash GK

had received service charges of Rs.1,30,54,601/- during the year under appeal, that in the P &L
account he had shown receipt at Rs. 1,12,44,601/- only, that service charges, received as per
certificate of deduction of tax at source u/s.203 of the Act ,worked out at Rs. 1, 18, 48,280/-.The
AO directed the assessee to reconcile the figures of service charges. As per the AO same were
not reconciled though sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee In his reply the assessee
stated that due to clerical error the receipt of Rs. 18,10,000/- was credited to some other account
and total receipt should he Rs.1,30,54,601/-instead of Rs.1,12,44,601/-.He asked the AO to
condone the error and offered the amount in question i.e.Rs.18 lakhs(app.)for taxation.The AO
held that the assessee kept and maintained the books of accounts duly audited by the Chartered
Accountant,that the assessee was unable to produce any evidence as to which account the said
receipt had been actually credited in the books of accounts,that the submission of the assessee
was an afterthought. He further held that the case was testimony of abuse of summary
assessment scheme,that income of Rs.18.10 lakhs would have not seen the light of the day had
the matter not been selected for scrutiny. Referring to the case of K P Madhusudan (251ITR99),
the AO levied a penalty of Rs.6.09 lakhs for concealing the particulars of income u/s.271(1)(c)of
the Act.

3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate
Authority (FAA).Before him it was contented that that some services rendered by M/s. Impact
Management Services during the year were wrongly billed in the name of M/s.Impact
Management and Personal Services,that mistake was noticed at the end of the year and then the
amount was inadvertently transferred to the spouse's account instead of proprietary concern
account,that no TDS was made while crediting the amount to her account,that the assessee had
not done anything willfully and there was no intention to hide the income.
After considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order, he held that only
after the department asked the assessee to reconcile the difference of Rs. 18,10,000/- the assessee
came forward and offered this sum for taxation, that it was not a voluntary disclosure of income,
that the AO has held that explanation to section 271(1)(c) was clearly attracted in the case of the
assessee,that he had not offered any explanation as to why there was difference between the
party wise receipt and the receipt shown by him in the P & L account,that no explanation was
offered about as to how his books of accounts had balanced when the receipts were shown less
by Rs.18.10 lakhs,that the assessee had committed default u/s.271(1)(c)of the Act.Finally,the
FAA confirmed the order of the AO.

4.Before us,Authorised Representative (AR) stated that by mistake the income of the spouse of
the assessee was not disclosed properly, that non disclosure of income was an inadvertent
mistake, that the assessee had paid due taxes on it, that there was no concealment of
income.Departmental Representative(DR)supported the order of the FAA and stated that the
assessee had not offered any explanation during the course of assessment proceedings or during
the penalty proceedings, that during appellate proceedings with regard to quantum additions the
assessee had not explained the understatement of income, that income was offered for taxation
only after concealment was detected by the AO .

5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the AO
while completing the assessment noticed difference in the receipts as shown by the assessee in
his return of income,that he directed the assessee to reconcile the difference in receipts,that the
                                                                                          6210/M/10 Prakash GK

assessee admitted the error and offered the income for taxation.Thus,it is clear that it was not a
voluntary step taken by the assessee to revise his income rather it was the inquiry made by the
AO that resulted in detecting the untaxed amount.The explanation offered by the assessee before
the AO,that it was the clerical mistake,in our opinion is not sufficient to rescue him from the
penal provisions.He is not a small time assessee of a remote place who is not aware of the
provisions of the Act.He is assisted by the professionals and the books of accounts are audited.It
is surprising that in spite of such a glaring mistake there is no mention of the disputed amount in
the audit report.If the matter had not been selected for scrutiny income amounting to Rs.18.10
lakhs would have remained untaxed.Assessees are supposed to declare their true income and not
to conceal the particulars of income while filing the return.Failure to disclose the taxable income
should result in levy of concealment penalty.The explanation filed by the assessee is neither
based on facts nor is convincing. Therefore,we are of the opinion that the FAA was justified in
confirming the penalty order passed by the AO. In the case of Zoom Communication the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court has 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 that he either 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, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would come into play and the assessee will be liable for the prescribed penalty". In our opinion the explanation offered by the assessee in the matter under appeal is neither bonafide nor substantiated and therefore the effective ground of appeal has to be decided against him. As a result,appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. . Order pronounced in the open court on 28th,April,2015. 28th ,2015 Sd/- Sd/- ( /I P Bansal) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /Mumbai, /Date: 28.04.2015 JV. 4 6210/M/10 Prakash GK /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.Appellant / 2. Respondent / 3.The concerned CIT(A)/ , 4.The concerned CIT / 5.DR "A" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai / , ,.. . 6.Guard File/ //True Copy// / BY ORDER, / Dy./Asst. Registrar , /ITAT, Mumbai.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Multi-level Marketing MLM India Affiliate Marketing Affiliate Marketing Software MLM Software MLM Solutions Multi level marketing solutions MLM Servi

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions