9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the department by filing the details, names, addresses along with the quantity of goods in respect of karigar’s gold and customer’s gold lying in the vault of the assessee and, therefore, the bonafide action of the assessee has to be accepted - In view of CIT v/s Reliance petroproducts (2010 -TMI - 75701 - SUPREME COURT), decided in favour of assessee. Receipt on account of extra work - In respect of extra work the term ‘white’ and ‘cash’ was written. Admittedly, vide assessee’s letter dated 20/4/2009, ‘white’ indicates cheque receipt and ‘cash’ indicates cash receipt. - held that:- The explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory in the eye of law. - Levy of penalty sustained - decided against the assessee. - ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... twhile tax practioner s failure/omission to look into the matter, the delay was caused. He further submitted that no litigant does stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late when there is demand and penalty imposed. Therefore, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. The reasons also affirm that there was no willful negligence or malafides on the part of the assessee. Further, consequences of appropriate action of the erstwhile tax practitioner should not be visited on the assessee. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for condonation of delay and admission of the appeal for disposal on merits. 2.1. We have heard the parties and gone through the condonation petition and the Affidavit of Sri Uttam Ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny explanation before the ld. A.O., who levied the penalty under provision of Explanation 1(A) to sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. After considering the rival submissions, we observe that the penalty relates to three different additions. The first one is the alleged income from Sreeman Guest House. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of income from Sreeman Guest House, the expenditure amounting to Rs.1,96,609/-, for which details were filed, were not entered in the books. These expenses for the month of April, 2006 to 06/2/2007 as claimed were not entered in the books. The learned counsel explained that the expenses were not entered in the books, but the sources were explained. However, the addition was made, but i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for approval and the discrepancy arose together with customer s gold lying in the vault. Therefore, the reconciliation statement was submitted on 20/4/2009. It has been explained on the date of survey that the assessee s books of account were incomplete as entries were not made, because no account was maintained though the assessee s opening and closing stock values were the same and this has resulted in incomplete report. That is why the assessee after considering all the facts prepared a final account and actual profit earned was offered for taxation. In that way, the quantum has also attained finality. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have considered the rival s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm while and cash was written. Admittedly, vide assessee s letter dated 20/4/2009, white indicates cheque receipt and cash indicates cash receipt. The ld. A.O. after verifying the ledger accounts found that Rs.18,64,129/- was in the form of cheque and the balance sum of Rs.12,51,901/- was in the form of cash. However, as per the survey documents SC/50, the cash receipt is Rs.15.80 lakhs and, therefore, the difference comes to Rs.3,29,099/- [Rs.15,80,000 Rs.12,51,901]. On this issue also, the learned counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (supra) will come to the rescue. He further submitted that there is no concealment and all were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e particulars of such income. Here in this case, by the document SC/50, the ld. A.O. found cheque receipt as well as cash receipt, but these were not brought in the ledger account and thus it amounts to concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory in the eye of law. Hence, we are of the view that the penalty on this addition of Rs.3,29,099/- is to be sustained. The ld. A.O. has levied penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. He is directed to compute the penalty at the same ratio with respect to the addition made on account of extra work in respect of Sreeman Construction alone. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
