9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the submissions of the appellant in regards to upholding of penalty on account of uncalled for an unjustified disallowance of Rs.64,800/- made out of salary account. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was absolutely unjustified in disagreeing with the contentions of the appellant in regards to bona fide claim of salary paid to its employee, did not agree for any disallowance, during assessment proceedings, wrongly relied on order sheet noting dated 27.12.2007, recorded at the back of the appellant, do not bear the signatures of the appellant or his counsel. 4. That all the comments passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are contrary to the facts of the case, without appreciating the same judiciously erred in partly upholding the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/-. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.53,473/- was made in the taxable income as discussed in the assessment order. 3. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this addition, which was confirmed in appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27.03.2008. The AO made another addition on account of excess salary and bonus debited to profit & loss account because during the course of survey, a list of employees was prepared and there were 10 employees working with the assessee out of which one employee was stated to be working on commission basis and 9 employees were working on salary Total monthly salary was at Rs.18,000/- for 9 employees and annual salary payable comes to Rs.2,16,000/-. During the course of assessment pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and filed the present appeal before this Bench. 5. At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Anil Puri, Advocate, stated that the disallowance of salary amounting to Rs.64,800/- was made by the AO stating therein that the assessee has claimed excess salary of two persons. He stated that the assessee was in possession of six vehicles and for each vehicle, one driver sum salesman is required and for each salesman one helper is also required and as such 12 persons are required to run the 6 vehicles. After this, there are to Assistant Managers, namely Sh. Jai Dev and Sh. Raman Kalia After that there is one general manager, Sh. Deepak Batra. While making the assessment, the A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the assessment proceedings especially dated 28.12.2007 in which we find that neither the assessee nor his authorized representative has signed the proceedings in which the assessee has admitted for disallowance of the amount in dispute. We have also perused the assessment proceedings and found that almost in each and every assessment proceedings, the assessee or his authorized representative has signed. But on 28.12.2007, the same are not there, giving benefit of doubt as well as the plausible explanation given by the assessee on the addition in dispute, we are of the view that the AO has not appreciated the explanation given by the assessee and has wrongly imposed penalty in dispute on the addition of Rs.64,800/- and similarly the ld. f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
