TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was a cooked up story of the assessee and did not find any merit in the appeal. The assessee could not furnish any explanation except setting up a cooked up story for loss of the books of account. It was admitted case that the books of account were maintained in the computer. The assessee did not even furnish the computer generated copies of the books of account. Levy of penalty confirmed - Decided against the assessee. - INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 369 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2018 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shakeel Ahmad For the Respondent : Manish Goel,Manu Ghildiyal ORDER 1. This Income Tax Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that explanation 1A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable in the case of the appellant ignoring the fact that the appellant had filed reply to the show cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? 3. The assessee is partnership firm which has been carrying on work of civil construction. The assessee filed return on its income on 01.12.2003 declaring income at ₹ 1,04,470/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to produce books of account, expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 27.03.2006 confirmed the application of profit rate of 8% and did not believe the story set up by the assessee for loss of books of account. The CIT(A) specifically observed that the story was a cooked up story. 7. The AO thereafter, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. After considering the reply of the assessee to the notice, the AO vide his order dated 12.06.2006 passed the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act after obtaining prior approval from Additional CIT, Range-I, Bareilly and imposed penalty of ₹ 4,44,723/- being the minimum penalty. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), Bareilly. The CIT(A) vide his order dated 02. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. 10. The Tribunal has also held that non production of books of account amounts to concealment of particulars of income. The Tribunal, therefore, vide impugned judgment and order has set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) on 02.11.2007 and allowed the appeal of the Department and restored the order of the AO imposing penalty of ₹ 4,44,723/-. 11. Heard Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manish Goel, counsel for the Department. 12. The AO while finalising the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act did not believe the story set up by the assessee for loss of books of account and invoked the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. The AO rejected the books of account while finalising the assessment ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
