ITA NO.162/MUM/2014 THERMOGUARD ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . , , BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.162/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09) THERMOGUARD ENGINEERING PLOT NO. 169/A, FLAT NO. 12 3 RD FLOOR, MAYUR NIWAS DR. AMBEDKAR DADAR TT(E) MUMBAI-400 014 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(1)(1) MUMBAI 400 020 ! ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.AADFT-2832-L ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $!# / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : DR. A.K. NAYAK, LD. DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 07/06/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/06/2017 2 ITA NO.162/MUM/2014 THERMOGUARD ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2008- 09 ASSAILS THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-29 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI DATED 15/10/2013. 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE DESPITE BEING PROVIDED WITH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES VIDE SEVERAL RPAD NOTICES ISSUED AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM 36. NO ADJOURNMENT APPLIC ATION IS PLACED ON RECORD. THEREFORE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE SAID APPEALS AND HENCE, FINDING NO OTHER OPTION , WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD AND AFTER HEARING LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR]. 3. THE APPEAL CONTEST IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) FOR RS.2,15,778/- WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE IMPUG NED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 4. FACTS LEADING TO THE APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E, BEING RESIDENT FIRM ENGAGED IN CONTRACT WORK , WAS ASSESSED FOR IMPUGNED AY U/S 143(3) AT RS.14,66,470/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.7,7 9,099/- E-FILED BY ASSESSEE ON 28/09/2008. THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED ADDIT ION OF RS.6,72,368/- ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN INTEREST ON FDRS WHICH WAS NO T REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND A NOMINAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA). PENALTY PROCEEDINGS 3 ITA NO.162/MUM/2014 THERMOGUARD ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WERE INITIATED FOR THESE ADDITIONS VIDE ASSESSING O FFICER [AO] ORDER DATED 27/06/2011 AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,15,778/- WAS IMPOS ED AS PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION-1. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME WITHO UT ANY SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15/10/2 013 WHERE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY UPON NOTICING THAT THE SAID I NTEREST WAS NOT REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WITH AN INT ENTION TO CONCEAL THE INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ADDUCE ANY BONA-FIDE REASONS FOR NON-DISCLOSURE OF THE SAID INCOME. AGGRIEVED, THE A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CONCLUSION OF LD. CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE INTERE ST INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ONLY OFFERED THE SAME DURING SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE SAME WAS NOT MERE INADVERTENT MISTAKE AND THEREFORE , THE PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED. 7. AFTER HEARING THE SAME AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION R EACHED AT BY THE LD. CIT(A) SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION T O OFFER TRUE AND CORRECT PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND PAY DUE TAXES THEREUP ON AND COULD NOT ATTRIBUTE THE NON-DISCLOSURE TO MERE INADVERTENT MI STAKE. THEREFORE, FINDING NO SUBSTANCE IN ASSESSEES APPEAL, WE ARE INCLINED TO DISMISS THE SAME. 4 ITA NO.162/MUM/2014 THERMOGUARD ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 8. IN NUTSHELL, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST JUNE, 2017. SD/- SD/- (C. N. PRASAD) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 21.06.2017 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT CONCERNED 5. &- , - , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ./ / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI