TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some estimated addition. Accordingly set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 117/Chd/2012 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2014 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, JJ. For the Apellant : Shri Sudhir Sehgal For the Respondent : Shri S.K. Mittal ORDER T. R. Sood (Accountant Member).- The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated November 28, 2011 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana. 2. In this appeal the assessee has raised following grounds : 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty of ₹ 9,16,120 levied by the Assessing Officer under section 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ludhiana which is decided in favour of the assessee and the exemption under section 80-IC which was disal lowed by the Assessing Officer is allowed as exemption in the appeal in a detailed order dated August 16, 2008. Regarding the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), it is further submitted that penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings are distinct and separate proceedings and assessment proceedings are separate and independent proceeding and disallowance of an expense per se cannot mean that the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars of its income. (i) Asst. CIT v. Modern Coal Company [2006] 103 TTJ (Amritsar) 726 (ii) CIT v. Bhoj Raj and Co. [2001] 247 ITR 696 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs and barrier reports from the Excise and Taxation Department of Himachal Pradesh were filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which clearly shows that bill numbers shown by the assessee tally with the bill numbers shown in the computerised statements. In this regard, he referred to the various computerised slips and copies of the bills in the paper book filed on October 9, 2014. He contended that these documents were not considered by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In any case this portion of deduction was denied on estimated basis, therefore, the above penal action is not called for. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental representative strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Parwanoo. 55. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide paras 5.21 to 5.24 had carried out the exercise of investigating the claims made by the assessee and had observed that the discrepancies stand explained by the assessee to some extent. However, in respect of few vehicles, the explanation given by the assessee was found to be incorrect and consequently profit to the extent of ₹ 25,03,572 was worked out to be not eligible for deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. The rel evant para 6 in this regard of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reads as under : 6. In view of the above discussions, though the conclusions of the Assessing Officer that no manufacturing activities were carried o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain at ₹ 25,03,572. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to consider the total taxable income of the appellant at ₹ 25,03,572 and the appellant would get a relief of ₹ 97,34,564. 56. In view of the explanation filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and also before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and in view of the discrepancies in mentioning the numbers of various vehicles and also co-relating the information received from the Commissioner Excise and Taxation, Himachal Pradesh with the facts of the case, we are in conformity with the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this regard. We, accordingly uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
