TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lared in the return of income in view of the clear finding of the Tribunal where the AO is directed to restrict the addition to the extent of profit on undisclosed sales. At the same time, where the very basis of levy of penalty, being the quantum addition, has been restricted by the Tribunal to ₹ 18,566/- in the quantum proceedings, the consequent levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) shall also be required to be computed on the said amount of ₹ 18,566/- as against the addition made by the AO. AO is directed to recompute the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by taking the quantum addition of ₹ 18,566/- as the basis for such levy as confirmed by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings and the remaining penalty is hereby directed to be dele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in filing the present appeal by 56 days. In this regard, the ld. AR submitted that there is no dispute that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) was duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee handed over the same to his regular tax consultant Shri R. N. Agarwal, Advocate. Unfortunately, however, Shri Agrawal, though received the same but at that point of time remaining in a haste to attend a hearing, misplaced the papers somewhere and even thereafter forgot that any such order was ever received by him. That it is only sometime in the first week of January where the assessee reported a recovery pressure exerted by the department and when the matter was being discussed by the assessee with the Shri R. N. Agrawal, Advocate, this rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issue since the primary duty of the Courts is to dispense justice and not to dismiss appeals on mere technicalities. It was accordingly submitted that the prayer of the assessee for condonation of the delay may be accepted and appeal may be admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Per contra, the ld DR opposed the prayer for condonation of delay so submitted by the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee has been very causal in his approach and should have taken necessary steps in terms of reaching out to his Counsel and in filing the present appeal in time which he failed to do so in the instant case. It was submitted that no sufficient cause has been submitted which calls for any indulgence by the Bench in condoning the delay so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of ₹ 5,50,000/- but confirmed the trading addition of ₹ 18,566/-. 6. Our reference was drawn to the Tribunal s order dated 10.02.2020 in ITA No. 129/JP/2016 and it was submitted that he Tribunal in the quantum proceeding has rejected the approach of the lower authorities and restored the income as declared in the return of income and the relevant findings of the Tribunal reads as under:- 10. The Co-ordinate Jaipur Bench of ITAT has already been taking this view in the case of ITO vs. Suresh Chandra Koolwal (2004) 32 TW 23 (Jp). Various Benches of the ITAT have taken similar view such as in the cases of R. K. Synthetics 30 TW 228 (Jd). Ashok Kumar Soni vs. DCIT (2001) 72 TTJ 323 (Jd), Karam Chand vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that it is a case of unrecorded sales which is clearly a case for levy of penalty. Given that in the quantum proceedings, the Tribunal has restricted the trading addition made by the AO to the extent of ₹ 18,566/-, it was submitted that the matter may be set-aside to the file of the AO to recalculate the quantum of penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the penalty has been levied on addition of ₹ 5,50,000/-, being investment in unaccounted purchases made by the AO pursuant to survey conducted at the premises of the assessee. The Tribunal in the quantum proceedings has ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
