TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e stands upheld and the estimation of income by the CIT(A) at 10% stands reduced to 8%. Addition of the protective addition - We are of the view that no interference is called for insofar as the addition made in the hands of the assessee was only protective and same CIT(A) has held the addition to be substantive in the hands of M/s. Serajuddin Co. The addition, if at all, is on substantive basis in the hands of M/s. Serajuddin Co. same can be challenged in the case of M/s. Serajuddin Co. No other arguments in regard to legal ground which has been raised by the assessee, Ld AR submitted that he is not pressing the ground and has endorsed in the file to that effect. Consequently, the legal issue raised by the assessee stands reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raising of iron ore. The assessee is one among the six contractors. The assessee does the raising contract work only for M/s. Serajuddin Co. There was a search on the premises of M/s. Serajuddin Co. on 28.5.2008. Consequent to the search on M/s. Serajuddin Co., there was a survey on the assessee on 9.7.2008. In the course of survey, it was noticed that the assessee was not maintaining its books of account nor were any vouchers found. Consequently, there was a search on the assessee on 27.9.2008 and notice under section 153A came to be issued to the assessee on 11.3.2010. The assessee was non-compliant and did not file its return of income. It was the submission that as no books of account or vouchers were found either in the survey or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings, the estimation done by the AO was liable to be upheld and that of the ld CIT(A) reversed. 4. In reply, ld AR submitted that in the course of search on M/s. Serajuddin Co., no cash had been found nor was any investment or any undisclosed assets found. It was the submission that though admittedly, shows cause notice had been issued by the AO, the statement relied upon by the AO for the purpose of assessment had not been provided to the assessee and consequently, such statement could not be relied upon. It was the submission that the assessee has not paid back any portion of the total receipts to M/s. Serajuddin Co. It was the further submission that if it is presumed that 50% of the total receipts of the assessee has been retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or rebut. It is also recognized that a show cause notice had been issued to the assessee and in the show cause notice the statements relied upon by the AO have not been discussed. The issue of 50% of total receipts being returned to M/s. Serajuddin Co., comes out from the statement recorded from the partner of the assessee firm. Mohd Atiqur Rahman. Though Md Atiqur Rahman mentions that the issues are looked after by Firoj Akhtar, there is no statement recorded from the said Firoj Akhtar. It is also an admitted fact that no books of accounts and vouchers have been maintained by the assessee, which is evident from the fact that the search did not bring out any books of account. However, in the assessment order, the AO refers to profit and l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In regard to revenue s appeals in respect of deletion of the protective addition, we are of the view that no interference is called for insofar as the addition made in the hands of the assessee was only protective and same CIT(A) has held the addition to be substantive in the hands of M/s. Serajuddin Co. The addition, if at all, is on substantive basis in the hands of M/s. Serajuddin Co. same can be challenged in the case of M/s. Serajuddin Co. No other arguments in regard to legal ground which has been raised by the assesse, Ld AR submitted that he is not pressing the ground and has endorsed in the file to that effect. Consequently, the legal issue raised by the assessee stands rejected. 8. In the result, appeals filed by the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce notice u/s. 153A has been issued. This being so, we are of the view that the assessee had a valid ground for non-filing of return. Accordingly, penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is deleted. 11. In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). 12. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the facts in assessee s case are similar to the facts in the case of Gobardhan Matia (supra) in respect of levy of penalty under section 271F of the Act. Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Gobardhan Matia (supra), the penalty as levied u/s.271F of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) stands deleted. 13. In the result, bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
