9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horized representative has signed. But on 28.12.2007, the same are not there, giving benefit of doubt as well as the plausible explanation given by the assessee on the addition in dispute that penalty has been wrongly confirmed - Decided in favor of assessee - I.T.A. No.163 (Asr)/2011 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2012 - SH. H.S. SIDHU, AND SH. B.P. JAIN, JJ. Appellant by: Sh. Anil Puri, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Amrik Chand, DR ORDER PER BENCH ; The assessee filed the present appeal against the impugned order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar, dated 14.03.2011 for the assessment year 2005-06 on the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law as well as in respect of the facts of the case, while partly upholding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not explain the discrepancies pointed out at the time of survey. The assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring income of Rs. 1,76,920/-. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) on 28.12.2007 on the total income of Rs.9,64,974/- after making an addition of Rs.7,88,052/- on the basis of material impounded during survey u/s 133A of the Act. The assessee is a wholesale dealer of Coke agency. During the course of survey u/s 133(A), physical inventory of stock was prepared and total stock was found at Rs.2,28,266/- which the assessee could not reconcile at the time of survey.. On 23.04.2007 i.e. one and half month after the date of survey, the assessee supplied a copy of total stock of RS.2,82,009/- as against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich worked out at RS.6480/- per annum (Rs.5400/- p.m.) were disallowed and added in taxable income. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings on this addition which was also confirmed by the ld. CITA) in the appeal filed by the assesse. The AO provided opportunity to the assessee in the penalty proceedings and finally levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act @ 100% on the addition discussed above vide order dated 16.10.2008 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2008, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. first appellate authority who vide impugned order dated 14.03.2011 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the penalty in respect of the addition/disallowance of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional statement before the AO because neither the assessee nor his authorized representative has signed the proceedings. He has drew our attention towards assessment proceedings dated 28.12.2007. He requested that the ld. first appellate authority has partly deleted the penalty out of the addition made by the AO and has wrongly confirmed part addition which is in dispute. He requested that the appeal filed by the assessee may be accepted by canceling the penalty in disputed. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of the ld. first appellate authority. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records. WE are of the view that the explanation given by the assessee regarding disallowance of salary of Rs.64,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
