9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where the tribunal has made a factual error or mistake – Decided against the Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s with the dealers/distributors. In addition, the CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings recorded that the special drought discount was only written off in the books of account and was a good debt. With regard to subsidy, the CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis that the relevant papers/ documents issued by the Union of India were not on record and the respondent assessee had failed to show that subsidy had been taken into account prior to 31st March 2001. 6. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued notice to the assessee in the penalty proceedings. The respondent-assessee in response to the said notice filed a detailed reply. Along with the reply the respondent-assessee placed on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is recorded as under :- "The AO provided proper opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons for such high expenses claimed during the year. Inspire (sic) of opportunities provided the assessee did not comply to the notices issued. In view of these facts the AO found that the abouve (sic) expense in respect bad debts, special drought discount and discount to distributors and dealers on off season sales could not be verified. It was also noticed by the AO that during the earlier year the assessee had not claimed any special drought discount. Since the assessee did not comply with the requirements of notices issued, the assessment was framed u/s 144/143(3) on the basis of material available on record and accordingly disallowed the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the appellant guilty of the contravening of the provisions of section 271(1)(c). In view of the above discursions (sic), I confirm penalty of Rs.54,30,665/- as levied u/s 271(1)© (sic) of the Act by the AO." 11. In these circumstances, the tribunal went into the details, examined the records and the confirmations which were furnished by the assessee. The paper book filed before the tribunal is of 71 pages. The tribunal after examining the said papers has come to the conclusion that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified. In the present case the respondent assessee had produced fresh material/evidence. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to consider/examine the veracity and correctness of the said pape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
