TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o appeals of the assessee directed against the orders of the CIT(A)- V, Baroda dated 21.8.2012 for A.Y.2003-2004 and 2004-2005. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are identical, which read as under: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has erred both in Law and in fact in partly confirming penalty of ₹ 84925/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c). 2. Your appellant submits that the Assessing Office has not recorded Satisfaction of Concealment before issuing show cause notice and if recorded copy of such satisfaction so recorded was not given to the Appellant though asked for and thereby resulting in levy of penalty not valid. 3. The notice of penalty issued by Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) was vague ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y. 2003-04 and ₹ 10.65 lacs in A.Y.2004-05 by alleging that there is bogus purchase. He further submitted that out of this addition, the learned CIT(A) has retained the addition of only ₹ 4.64 lakhs i.e. 25%, and the same was further reduced by the Tribunal to ₹ 2.34 lakhs being 12.5% in A.Y.2003-04. Similarly, in A.Y.2004-05 also, addition was reduced to 12.5%. It is submitted that for such estimated disallowance, penalty is not justified. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the Tribunal order rendered in the case of M/s.Rolex Tin Works Vs. ITO, in ITA No.2439-2440/Ahd/2012 dated 15.3.2013. As against this, the learned DR of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. He also placed relianc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5%. Now, in the light of these facts, we examine the applicability of Tribunal decision cited by the learned AR of the assessee. In that case also, it is noted by the Tribunal that the addition made by the AO and reduced by the appellate authorities was on estimation basis, and therefore, it was held that penalty is not justified. Now, we examine the applicability of various judgments cited by the learned DR of the Revenue. 5. First judgment is the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court rendered in the case of Kalpaka Bazar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 313 ITR 414 (Ker). In our considered opinion, this judgment is not applicable to the present case, because, the facts are different. In that case, the addition/ disallowance made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO in respect of purchases from three parties on this basis alone that the assessee has failed to furnish the confirmation letters in respect of three parties, and the assessee failed to produce the documentary evidence to show physical delivery of goods, mode of transportation of goods with vehicle numbers, and names and addresses of the transporters along with details of the places from where the goods have been loaded and unloaded, apart from some other minor details. This is also noted by the AO in the present case that the assessee had expressed its inability to produce proprietors of these suppliers. Hence, it is seen from the facts of the present case that there is no such sworn statement of the seller available on record, as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
