9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. As observed by Registry, this appeal is time barred by 40 days. Learned counsel has placed on record the application by Partner of the assessee firm for condonation of delay in filing appeal. We have gone through the application and find that certain documents necessary for filing appeal were misplaced which resulted in delay in filing appeal. In our view assessee had a reasonable cause due to which this delay occurred. We condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit it for adjudication. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal:- "1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in making the assessment by keeping the some of the penalty as passed by the learned AO. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty on addition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .10.2008. Case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) followed by 142(1) of the Act was duly served on the assessee. Assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 27.12.2010, after making addition of Rs. 66,48,023/- and income was assessed at Rs. 74,31,320/-. Against the impugned addition of Rs. 66,48,023/-, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and got partially succeeded. Thereafter, against the deletion of addition of Rs. 41,14,374/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal, but the same was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 13.08.2015 in ITA No.2394/Ahd/2011. 5. Subsequent to the order of CIT(A) on the quantum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act. However, till date no opportunity has been provided by the Assessing Officer for the necessary verification of this amount. 9. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the order under Section 271(1)(c) of ld. Assessing Officer is erroneous as it contains many contradictions for the reason that in paragraph 3 of the impugned order it refers to the confirmed addition by CIT(A) at Rs. 5,07,763/-, whereas in para 6 he mentioned the concealed income at Rs. 12,22,260/- and has imposed penalty @ 100% of the tax at Rs. 3,77,680/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that the issues may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for framing afresh the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that ld. Assessing Officer has imposed penalty of Rs. 3,77,680/- on the concealed income of Rs. 12,22,260/-. Therefore, there is a variation in the figure of confirmed concealed income in the impugned order in paragraph 3 as well as in paragraph 6. We also observe that at the time of completion of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, addition of Rs. 7,65,000/- was made towards unexplained capital contribution. But when the issue came up before the ld. CIT(A), it was contended that out of Rs. 7,65,000/-, Rs. 7,50,000/- was a loan received from Reliance Consumer Finance in the personal capacity and was accordingly introduced as capital in the firm and balance sum of Rs. 15,000/- was transferred from Savings Bank account of the partners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
