TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) on account of ad hoc disallowance out of manufacturing expenses for want of proper vouchers and necessary verification, we are of the considered view, that as the said disallowance was made on an estimate basis and not on the basis of any concrete evidence which would irrefutably prove to the hilt raising of a bogus claim of expenditure by the assessee, therefore, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as regards the same can be sustained. We vacate the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 185/RPR/2017 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2022 - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member And Shri Jamlappa D Battull, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri G. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation and relying on 3rd party version without having material on record and is unjustified and be deleted. 4. That the learned AO/CIT(A) also erred in not keeping the penalty proceedings/appeal pending till disposal of appeal in quantum filed before the learned CIT(A)/ Hon ble ITAT Raipur Bench respectively, thus promoting litigation on same issue. Prayed to set aside the order of learned CIT(A). 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee firm which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Conveyor rollers, Idlers rollers system and job works had on 30.09.2009 e-filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10, declaring an income of ₹ 1,89,740/-. Original assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal, it was submitted by Mr. G.S Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short AR ) for the assessee, that the Tribunal while disposing off the assessee s quantum appeal for the year under consideration had vide its order passed in ITA No.01/RPR/2014, dated 15.01.2018 restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to re-adjudicate the additions made by him qua two of the issues, viz. (i) addition towards suppression of sale : ₹ 8,60,783/-; and (ii) addition u/s. 68 of bogus trading liability : ₹ 27,49,796/-. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Assessing Officer had thereafter vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019 accepted the assessee s claim and not made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Admittedly, as stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, the aforesaid two additions, viz. (i) addition towards suppression of sale : ₹ 8,60,783/-; and (ii) addition u/s. 68 of bogus trading liability : ₹ 27,49,796/- which were initially made by the Assessing Officer, had pursuant to the matter being set-aside by the Tribunal to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication vide its order passed in ITA No. 01/RPR/2014; dated 15.01.2018, does no more survive, as the explanation of the assessee as regards both of the issues was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the course of the set-aside proceedings, therefore, penalty that was imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
