9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.10,30,000/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions amounting to Rs.28,43,907/-. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty for concealment levied on the G.P. addition of Rs.16,13,014/- on the ground that the addition was on estimated basis. The CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the discrepancies were noticed in the accounts and that the assessee has not at all maintained stock register. The assessee did not provide correct and complete accounts of its income, and thus, concealed particulars of income. The books of account of the assessee were, therefore, rejected u/s.145 of the Act and made addition on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose was detected during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings." 2. The A.O. observed in penalty order that total income of the assessee in A.Y. 2004-05 was determined in assessment order of Rs. 53,23,904/- and following additions were made:- (a) Further income estimated on account of fall in GP Rs. 16,13,014/- (b) Unexplained expenditure U/s 69C Rs. 8,65,000/- (c) Depreciation on bore well and staff quarters Rs. 5,355/- (d) Long outstanding creditors Rs. 71,860/- (e) Disallowance u/s 36 (1)(iii) Rs. 2,88,678/- Total Rs. 28,43,907/- The A.O. had given opportunity of being heard at the time of imposing penalty. He has also given brief facts of the addition on page 1 to 3 of the penalty order. After con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) as wrong depreciation on bore well was claimed. The other addition in the assessment was long outstanding creditor of Rs. 71,860/- on account of cessation of liability. The quantum addition was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for non admitting the evidence under Rule 46A but penalty imposed on this amount has been deleted by ld. CIT(A) by observing that mere not admitting the evidence in appeal proceeding, the issue is debatable and penalty would not be warranted. The another addition was u/s 36(1)(iii) on notional interest disallowance of Rs. 2,81,678/- on which penalty also deleted by the ld. CIT(A) as addition was made on estimated on notional basis. 5. Now the revenue is in second appeal before us. Ld. A.R. gave the chart along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the order of Hon. ITAT not yet given by AO 4 Penalty on disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) 3 3(d) 8 9 9 9.3 9 10 19 22 In quantum-Hon. ITAT directed the AO to verify the Cash Flow & readjudicate the matter. Working and delete the addition if working is correct Mere Disallowance in Assessment Proceedings does not ipso facto leads to levy of penalty. No inaccurate particulars are filled & there is mere disallowance U/s 36(1)(iii) rejecting explanation. Reliance place on Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158 (SC) Appeal effect to the order of Hon. ITAT not yet given by AO 6. The ld. D.R. fairly admitted the fact before the Bench that the assessee's case has been set aside on quantum addition by the above cited judgment. 7. We have perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
