TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee, which are directed against two separate orders of learned CIT (A) IV, Surat, both dated 06.11.2012 for the same A.Y. 2008 09, in respect of Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) 271B respectively. 2. First, we take up the appeal in ITA No. 296/Ahd/2013 which is in respect of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c). 3. It was submitted by the learned AR for the assessee before us that under similar fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 60,000/- was introduced by the assessee as seed money and he worked out the peak at ₹ 14,45,702/- total ₹ 15,05,702/- and after deducting ₹ 5.50 lacs, he made addition of ₹ 955,702/-. For this, he imposed a penalty of ₹ 507,300/- u/s 271 (1) (c) of I T Act since, the addition was upheld by learned CIT (A). Under these facts, penalty was deleted by the tribunal. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, we find no reason to take a contrary view in the present case. Hence, by respectfully following this tribunal decision, we delete the penalty. 5. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. Now, we take up the appeal in ITA No. 297/Ahd/2013 which is in respect of penalty u/s 271B. 7. It was submitted by the learned AR for the assessee before us that under simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, there can be no possibility of any offence as contemplated by section 44AB. It was held that on this reasoning, penalty imposed u/s 271B is erroneous and the same was deleted. In the present case also, it is admitted factual position that the assessee did not maintain the books as contemplated u/s 44AA. Hence, the facts are identical in the present case and we find no reason to take a contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
