9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quantum appeal related to additions made by the Assessing Officer. 2. Penalty imposed under sections 271(1)(c) and 273(1) challenged by both sides. 3. Power of CIT(A) to set aside penalty order. 4. Imposition of penalty under section 273(a) for default. Analysis: 1. The appeals were related to the assessment year 1985-86 and involved additions made by the Assessing Officer based on alleged on-money received on the sale of cigarettes and understatement of sale proceeds. The quantum appeal also addressed penalty proceedings initiated under sections 271(1)(c) and 273(1). The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving M/s Bhagwant Sons Enterprises and held in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 84,660. 2. Regarding the addition of Rs. 53,119, the assessee claimed to have revised its return and added Rs. 40,000 voluntarily, with the balance being deducted as expenditure incurred in earning that income. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not consider the revised return, leading to the entire addition being upheld. However, considering the revised return, the actual addition should have been Rs. 13,119. Citing the decision in the case of M/s Bhagwant Sons Enterprises, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the lower authorities' order on this issue. 3. The penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was challenged by both sides, questioning the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the penalty order. The assessee argued that the penalty should be canceled as there was no positive evidence of concealment of income. Referring to relevant case law, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee, holding that the Revenue failed to prove concealment, and thus directed the cancellation of the penalty. 4. In the appeal against the cancellation of the penalty imposed under section 273(a), the Revenue contended that the assessee's filing of a revised return indicated knowledge of higher income, justifying the penalty. However, the assessee argued that the revised return was filed to avoid conflict and that there was no default under section 273(a) as the estimates were in accordance with the law. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting the lack of positive evidence of actual income earned and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed some appeals, allowed others, and dismissed one appeal based on the analysis of the issues related to additions, penalties, and the power of the CIT(A) in the context of the assessment year 1985-86.
|
