TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71(1)(c) is also not valid. Hence, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and quash the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 1572/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2017 - SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri S. Rama Rao Revenue by : Shri A. Sitarama Rao ORDER Per S. Rifaur Rahman, A. M. This is an appeal of the assessee directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(A) - III, Hyderabad, dated 10/09/2013, for AY 2006-07. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that in the case of the assessee, a survey u/s 133A was conducted on 25/08/2008 and certain ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain amounts were noted. It was further stated that the assessee had furnished letters from Mr. Vijay Kumar confirming that he had only received ₹ 72 lakhs and that the other amount of ₹ 18 lakhs had not been received. 6. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) has elaborately discussed the issue at length with various case laws. Relevant observations of the CIT(A) are as under: 5.9 Coming to the facts of the case of the appellant, it is clear that the appellant had paid an amount of ₹ 18 lakhs over and above what was recorded in the books of account and what was shown in the return of income. The paper has been found and impounded from the custody of the appellant during the course of survey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing officer is hereby confirmed. . 7. Aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the AO, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act of ₹ 6,05,880/- without considering the explanation submitted and inspite of the fact that the appellant has recorded all the business transactions properly in the books of account maintained and there is no concealment of its income or furnishing of inaccurate part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC). 10. The Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand relied on the orders of revenue authorities. 11. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. The issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows, [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) wherein the Apex Court upheld the decision of the Hon ble High Court, in which, the Hon ble High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of the revenue, who came in appeal against the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying on a decision of Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, [2013] 359 ITR 565/210 allowed the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
