TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have incurred the same in the relevant previous year as per its turnover and profit figure. We accordingly accept assessee’s challenge to correctness of the impugned penalty qua this first issue. Section 68 addition - It emerges that the Assessing Officer’s remand report submitted during the course of the quantum lower appellate proceedings on 10.05.2010 found aggregate sum of ₹ 12,21,251/- out of ₹ 12,61,251/- to be genuine. The assessee does not appear to have filed confirmation of Shri Narayanbhai Motibhai in this regard. We observe in these facts that the said failure in view of all mitigating facts particularly in view of the tax payer having proved almost all of the amounts in question cannot be taken as an instance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outset that the impugned penalty pertains to five quantum disallowances/additions on incentive payments, unexplained cash credits/deposits u/s.68, loans and advances to M/s. Cox and Kings (India) Ltd., other persons and expenditure incurred by assessee s Director Shri Ashwin Patel representing corresponding amounts of ₹ 7lacs, ₹ 40,000/-, ₹ 1,10,000/-, ₹ 1,02,260/- and ₹ 1,40,815/-; respectively. Both Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) treat the same as an instance of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in order to invoke Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Case file suggests that the assessee had filed its quantum appeal ITA No.2950/Ahd/2010 before this tribunal. A co-ordinate bench s order dated 12.05. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llen to 71.16 lacs as compared with the previous year and yet the commission expenses continued at the level of 39.6 lacs . The A.O further observed that at the time of survey total incentive was only ₹ 10.54 lacs till 22.01.2002 and the same jumped to 36.33 lacs meaning thereby that the assessee has booked expenses of ₹ 25.79 lacs during the intervening period from 22.01.2002 to 31.03.2002. 5. Since, the assessee failed to furnish details of recipient and the basis of working the incentive, the A.O disallowed the excess claim of incentive to the tune of ₹ 25.78 lacs. 6. Assessee strongly agitated the matter before the Id. CIT(A) and reiterated its claim of incentive payment. After considering the facts and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been made by the AO by disallowing 1/10th of commission paid to various parties by the assessee on the ground that there was huge increase under this head in comparison to proportionate expenses on this account in the immediately preceding year with reference to receipts of the assessee and assessee failed to justify this increase. Before Ld. CIT(A) also assessee was not able to satisfy him by way of producing supporting evidence though Ld. CIT(A) gave ample opportunity for doing this. Before us also assessee failed to substantiate his claim any further, therefore we are not inclined to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Ground no. 1 of assessee's appeal is dismissed. 9. Since in the earlier ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. Third penalty issue is quantum addition of ₹ 1,02,620/- in the nature of payments made to various parties. This addition is based on blank payment vouchers in Annexure A-13 (pages 85 to 89). The assessee did not file any explanation in quantum proceedings as per the CIT(A) s corresponding lower appellate order. The assessee however appears to have pleaded in the instant lower appellate proceedings that the sum in question represented its cash balance in regular books as follows: Date as per Voucher Amount Balance as per regular books of accounts on the date as mentioned in the voucher 11.05.2001 30,000 1,78,197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
