TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... number in the ledger account of Insecticide India Ltd in the books for AY 2014-15, and that the assessee not raised the issue of double taxation in AY 2014-15 - no appeal in quantum assessment is filed by the assessee in AY 2012-13. As already held that the assessee has no cause of action to file against the addition which was offered by them during the assessment. From the remand report of AO, we find that there is no express denial of AO that the same receipt is not considered and offered for taxation in AY 2014-15. When the assessee has inadvertently not included the said receipt and has already included in AY 2014-15, and has already been taxed twice, therefore, in peculiar facts of the case, the assessee cannot be treated as not gui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter of reconciliation of accounts amongst the appellant and the vendor. (3) On the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty is required to be deleted. 2. Brief facts in the case of assessee, the assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on 29.09.2015. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order besides other additions made addition on account of unaccounted receipt of ₹ 8,09,653/- and addition on account of unaccounted purchases of ₹ 25,000/- .No appeal was filed against such additions of unaccounted receipt of ₹ 8,09,353/- in quantum assessment, though the assessee challenged the other additions. The Assessing Officer at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the discount the amount payable comes to ₹ 13,31,120/-, whereas the assessee has shown purchased from this party of ₹ 13,06,120/-.Hence, assessee made unaccounted purchases of ₹ 25,000/-.the reply of the assessee was not accepted by assessing officer. The Assessing Officer levied penalty on both the addition @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 3. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submission vide submission dated 21.05.2019. On the addition of unaccounted receipt of ₹ 8,09,653/-, the assessee submitted his similar submissions as made before assessing officer that it had inadvertently not shown ₹ 8,09,653/- is income. It was also stated that as a matter of fact, the income of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded to the Assessing Officer for seeking his remand report. The Assessing Officer furnished his remand report dated 12.02.2020.The contents of remand report is reproduced by Assessing Officer in para-5.1 of his order. On the addition of unaccounted receipt of ₹ 8.09 lakh, the Assessing Officer submitted that no appeal against the addition of ₹ 8.09 lakh was filed by assessee. Further for AY 2014-15 is completed by making various additions and the assessee has not raised any question of double addition. On the addition of ₹ 25,000/-, the Assessing Officer submitted that the issue of addition was not pressed before Ld. CIT(A) in first appellate proceedings. On the remand report, the assessee filed its reply / rejoinder. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee submits that assessee is a contractor for industrial construction sites, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on two additions (i) addition on account of ₹ 8.09 lakh against corresponding TDS reflected in Form Nos.26AS and (ii) on addition on account of purchase of ₹ 25,000/-. On the additions of the ld AR for the assessee submits that immediately coming to know about the difference of ₹ 8.09 lakhs, the assessee instantly offered this amount for taxation. As a matter of fact, the income of ₹ 8,09,653/- was accounted by assessee in AY 2014-15. Thus, this receipt has been taxed twice as the same was offered in AY 2014-15, as well as in the year under consideration and that again the assessee should not be sad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The ld CIT(A) upheld the action of AO by taking view that no appeal was filed by the assessee against such addition. We find that the assessee has no occasion to file appeal, when the assessee himself offered the difference of receipt during the assessment. Before us, the ld AR for the assessee vehemently submitted that the receipt of ₹ 8.09 lakhs has been taxed twice as the same was offered in AY 2014-15, as well as in the year under consideration and that again the assessee should not be saddled with penalty under section 271(1)(c). We find that the assessee made similar submission to the ld CIT(A). On the submissions of the assessee, the ld CIT(A) called remand report from the assessee. The AO furnished his remand report vide his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
