9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... davit or by producing the books of account and audit reports, soon after the survey - Question of law is not involved but it is a case where the appellant challenged the sufficiency of evidence only and once there is some material, justifying the order passed by the Tribunal, do not find that in the appellate jurisdiction, this Court should interfere in such matter where penalty has been imposed legally on the basis of cogent reasons - Do not find any merit in these appeals - Hence, these appeals are dismissed. Statement u/s 133A - the evidentiary value of the statement recorded under Section 133A (3)(iii) may be different than the statement recorded during the course of search and seizure under Section 132(4) because of the reason that un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company have been maintained but also observed that the assessee company has not filed the audited accounts along with the return of income for the assessment year in question. However, in spite of the notice to the appellant for imposition of penalty, the appellant did not produce books of account to substantiate his contention that he was maintaining the books of account as required under Section 133A. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has given cogent reasons for holding that the imposition of penalty against the appellant cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the observation of the C.I.T.(Appeals) made in the order dated 27th Sept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , delivered in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. S.Khader Khan Son , reported in (2008) 214 STR(Mad) 589 and Paul Mathews Sons vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2003) 181 CTR (Ker) 207 respectively and also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court , delivered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in (1973) 91 ITR 18(SC). 6. The learned counsel for the Revenue drew our attention to the reasons given by the Tribunal for setting aside the order passed by CIT(Appeals) and submitted that the order of the CIT(Appeals) was rightly set aside by the Tribunal by giving cogent reasons. It is also submitted that it is a case of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement recorded under Section 133A (3)(iii) may be different than the statement recorded during the course of search and seizure under Section 132(4) because of the reason that under sub-section(4) of Section 132 the authorised officer is empowered to examine the person on oath where under sub-clause (iii) of sub-section(3) of Section 133A only statement can be recorded but not on oath. 8. Be that as it may, in the present case, the Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal have not relied solely on the said recorded statement of the assessee but have also taken into consideration the circumstantial evidence. It is worth while to mention here that Tribunal in its order dated 25th April,2000 observed that in course of penalty proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
