Whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income during assessment proceedings?

Last updated: 11 September 2021

Court :
ITAT Delhi

Brief :
Appellant, M/s. Ishita Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-18, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2012-13 confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Citation :
ITA No.2789/Del./2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
and
SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)
ITA No.2789/Del./2017
(Assessment Year : 2012-13)

M/s. Ishita Technologies Private Ltd., ,
2/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
Delhi – 110 002.

vs.

DCIT, Circle 12 (2)

New Delhi.

ASSESSEE BY : None
REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Senior DR
Date of Hearing : 01.09.2021
Date of Order : 01.09.2021

O R D E R

Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : On the basis of assessment framed under section 143 (3) of the Act vide order dated 20.03.2015 making an addition of Rs.41,18,325/- on account of expenses claimed but not found allowable, penalty proceedings have been initiated against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs.12,72,563/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. Assessee has not preferred to put in appearance despite issuance of the notice and consequently, we proceeded to decide the present appeal with the assistance of the ld. DR as well as on the basis of documents available on the file.

3. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the lower authorities and arguments addressed by the ld. DR for the Revenue, the sole question arises for determination in this case .

4. Order pronounced in open court on this 1st day of September, 2021 after the conclusion of the hearing through video conference.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement