Asian Petroproducts & Exports Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 573/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8013 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH D BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.573/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2005-2006 ASIAN PETROPRODUCTS & EXPORTS 204/205, STERLING CENTRE R.C. DUTT ROAD ALKAPURI, BARODA 390 007. PAN : AACCCA 8443 J VS. DCIT, CIR.1(1) BARODA. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, A R REVENUE BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 25/06/2018 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/06/2018 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)- I, BARODA DATED 16.12.2014 PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT9A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.2,45,000/- WHICH WAS IMPOSED BY THE A O UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.10.2005 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.47,36,330 /-. AN ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE A CT ON 16.11.2007 WHEREBY THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED A T (-)34,85,184/-. THE LD.AO HAS MADE TWO ADDITIONS VIZ. RS.6,36,675/- UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDIT, AND RS.6,14,472/- BEING NET PROFIT WORKED AT 1% OF THE TURNOVER. THE AO INITIATED ITA NO.573/AHD/2015 2 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND ULTIMATELY IMPOSED A PENALT Y OF RS.2,45,000/- QUA ADDITION OF RS.6,14,472/-. APPEAL TO THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SIMPLY FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAS A LOSS AND NOTHING WILL HAPPEN. IT DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DETAILS. EVEN IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE VISITED WITH PENALTY. BEFORE US, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING HUGE LOSS, IT WAS NOT HAVING COMPLETE DETAILS, AND THEREFORE IT DID NOT PRODUCE THEM BEFORE THE AO. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT BY ACC EPTING THESE CONTENTIONS WOULD BE GIVING A PREMIUM TO A NEGLIGENT PERSON. T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ESTIMATED UNDER COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES I.E. M ODE OF QUANTIFICATION OF INCOME. IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTIMATED SIMPLY BY DISBEL IEVING ANY DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. SAY FOR EXAMPLE, IF AN A SSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE, BUT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE IT, THEN ON AN ADHOC BASIS LD.AO PARTLY DISALLOWED, THAT EXPENDITURE WOULD BE CONSID ERED AS A DISALLOWANCE ON ESTIMATION BASIS. BUT HERE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION. THE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED ON COMPULSION BASIS IN OR DER TO QUANTIFY. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY C ONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27 TH JUNE, 2018 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/06/2018