|The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5082 (Mum-Trib)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c) Section 37(1) Section 143(3)
Addition of 30% of retainership expenses which were not supported by evidence and amount of difference in TDS as per return of income and 26AS, penalty levied was correct and, therefore, upheld.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Leviability - Excessive retainership expenses and mismatch of TDS as per return and 26AS -
Assessee was an individual in the profession of accountancy and consultancy run under the name and style 'Kishor S. Shenoy & Associates' and filed its return of income. AO had made two additions, i.e., (a) Rs. 63,93,330, i.e., 40% out of total retainership expenses of Rs. 1,59,83,328, according to AO, it was excessive and not supported by the evidences and (b) Rs. 3,77,971 on account of difference in the income as per TDS claimed in return of income and 26AS. Accordingly, AO completed the assessment under section 143(3). The AO had also initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). CIT(A) sustained 30% of disallowance, instead of 40% of total retainership expenses. CIT(A) further sustained the addition made by AO on the discrepancy found in the TDS as per return of income and 26AS. Held: After considering the findings of CIT(A) and keeping in view the conduct and nature of the assessee that he had filed the appeal, but failed to appear before this Tribunal on the aforementioned dates nor submitted any documents in support of his appeal nor appointed any authorized representative to appear on his behalf. Therefore, there were no reasons to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the CIT(A). Hence, the findings so recorded by the CIT(A) were judicious and were well reasoned. Resultantly, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
REFERRED : JSW Ltd. ITA Nos. 62634 & 6103/Mum/2018, dated 14-5-2020 : 2020 TaxPub(DT0 21422 (Mum-Trib).
FAVOUR : In assessees four (partly).
A.Y. : 2013-14
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT