9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowance made by AO - the levy of penalty on the such amount cannot be sustained – thus, the matter of levy of penalty is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T. A. No. 1658 /AHD/2011 - - - Dated:- 9-5-2014 - Shri Mukul Kr. Shrawat, J.M. And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S. N. Divetia A.R. For the Respondent : Shri K. C. Mathews, Sr. D.R. ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi,A.M. 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-II, Surat dated 31.03.2011 for A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under. 3. Assessee is a firm stated to be engaged in the business of dyeing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts as well as law of the case. Thus, Penalty needs to be deleted lock stock and barrel. (3) That, both the A.O. as well as C.I.T.(A) erred by treating Labour Charges of Rs.48,40,134/- as unexplained expenses and also levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was levied only on adverse presumptions, arbitrary and against the evidences adduced by the Appellant. Therefore, the Penalty needs to be vacated. (4) That the Penalty levied by the A.O. and confirmed by the C.I.T.(A) for suppressed job charges income of Rs.65,89,082/- were only on the basis of surmises, probabilities and adverse presumptions as against the materials on records to prove the act of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncealed the particulars of income and the return had remained unexplained. He therefore submitted that A.O was fully justified in levying penalty and thus supported the order of A.O. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the present case, we find that during the course of assessment, the addition was made by the A.O of Rs. 65,89,082/- and Rs. 48,40,134/- on account of suppression of job charges and unexplained expenditure respectively. On the aforesaid addition penalty was levied by A.O. We further find that the co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 28.12.2012 confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 13 lac and Rs. 10 lac on account of suppression of job charges and unexplained expendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
