TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion of law arises for consideration – Decided against Revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 67 of 2010, Income Tax Appeal No. - 68 of 2010, Income Tax Appeal No. - 270 of 2011, Income Tax Appeal No. - 61 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 27-8-2014 - Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala And Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,JJ. For the Appellant : A. N. Mahajan/S. C. ,Ashok Kumar For the Respondent : Krishna Agrawal ORDER The present appeals are filed by the department against the orders dated 09.09.2009 and 12.05.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in I.T.A. Nos. 363 364/Alld./2008 and I.T.A. Nos. 308 309/Alld./2010 for the assessment years 2004-05 2005-06. On 10.12.2012, a Co-ordinate Bench has admitted the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P. rate @ 10% for the purpose of computing business income of the assessee and made the additions accordingly. The same were upheld by the first appellate authority. However, the Tribunal has restricted N.P. rate @ 5% and reduce the additions accordingly. Being aggrieved, the department has filed the present appeals. With this background, heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant-department; and Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the A.O. has rejected the books of account under Section-145(3) of the Act and estimated the N.P. rate @ 10% on gross receipts. The same was upheld by the first appellate authority. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 ITR, 274 (Guj.); III. Vijay K. Talwar Vs. C.I.T. (2011) 1SCC 673 ; and IV. Commissioner, Custom Vs. Stoneman Marbels (2011) 2SCC 758. In view of above, no question of law is emerging from the impugned order. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the same is hereby sustained alongwith the reasons mentioned therein. Answer to substantial questions of law is in favour of the assessee and against the department. Remaining two appeals (Income Tax Appeal Nos. 270 of 2011 61 of 2012) are pertaining to the penalty levied by the A.O. under Section-271(1)(c) of the Act. When in quantum appeals additions were deleted (supra), then penalty orders did not survive. So, the Tribunal has ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
