TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. It however does not even refer to a single evidence to support its prima facie opinion of inflation of expenses. Something further surprises us is that all the above heads of inflated expenses involve precise round figures which have nowhere been tallied with the actual ones in books of accounts. The Revenue strongly rests its case on assessee’s partners survey disclosure of ₹ 1.3crores and payment of taxes thereupon. It however fails to rebut Board’s circular itself dated 10.03.2003 that no significance is attached to such survey statement in absence of any corresponding evidence being collected. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 761/Ahd/2014 - - - Dated:- 12-1-2017 - Shri Pramod Kumar, Accountant Member And Shri S. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case file indicates that the assessee thereafter revised its return on 15.10.2010 including the above additional income of ₹ 1.3crores allegedly representing miscellaneous labour expenses, file work, stone blasting, concrete work expenses, Cent. Steel Works, Cinking work expenses of ₹ 25, 15, 30, 20,18 and 20(all figures in lacs in precise round figures). The Assessing Officer completed a regular assessment on 20.12.2011 accepting the above revised return except the fact that he made certain disallowances/additions not forming subject matter of the instant appeal. He assessed assessee s total income as ₹ 1,70,32,430/-. He would initiate the impugned penalty proceedings as well u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.03.2003 that such admissions made in course of search, survey or seizure do not have any evidentiary value. Reliance is further placed on hon ble apex court s decision in CIT vs. S. Kader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 upholding Madras high court s decision in the very case (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras). 6. The Revenue strongly supports the impugned penalty as imposed in both the lower proceedings. It highlights the fact that the assessee never registered any retraction as it has already paid the taxes so far as the impugned additional income of ₹ 1.3 crores is concerned. 7. We have given our thoughtful considerations to rival submissions. There can hardly be any dispute that quantum and penalty are two distinct and independent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
