9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . For the Appellant : Shri S. N. Soparkar, AR For the Respondent : Shri J. P. Jhangid, Sr. DR ORDER Per A. Mohan Alankamony: This appeal is preferred by the assessee aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A)-XIV, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. CIT(A)-XIV/C.8/108-A/06-07 dated 07-08-2007, for the assessment year 1993-94, passed u/s 250 read with section 271(1) ( c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The assessee has raised two grounds of appeal wherein ground No.2 is general in nature and does not survive for adjudication. The lone surviving ground No.1 is reproduced herein under:- "1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1) (c) by the AO of Rs.2,09,323/- that is wholly unsustaina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) sustained the penalty imposed for Rs.2,09,323/- by the learned AO. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) are reproduced herein under for reference: - "2.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return showing total income of Rs.64,15,510/- and the assessment was completed on 25-03-1993 determining total income at Rs.1,65,60,950, after considering various seized materials found during the search. After the decision of Hon. ITAT, the resultant income comes to Rs.68,61,600/-. Vide this order, the ITAT has sustained the addition of Rs.18,38,811/- against the suppressed production, which was on account of difference between the excise register and sei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... papers found during the search, which showed that the appellant was suppressing the production, as there was difference between excise records and the seized records and also there were excess stock found of raw materials and chemicals. The additions were based on these evidences and not merely on estimate basis. Hence, it is apparent from the facts mentioned in the asst. order and the order passed by the Hon. ITAT in quantum proceedings that the appellant has suppressed the production. I, therefore, hold that the AO was quite justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271( c) of amounting to Rs.2,09,323/-. The case laws as relied upon by the appellant would in no way helpful to the appellant, as the facts in those cases are quite distinct. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
