9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 1998-1999 is directed against the orders of the CIT(A). 2. The only ground of the appeal of the assessee is as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 8,75,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961." 3. The learned counsel for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s wages, and therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was levied on the assessee. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel, 261 ITR 216 and A.M. Shah & Company Vs. CIT, 238 ITR 415 (Guj). 5. The learned counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that the assessee has never admitted any bogus wages, and in fact the disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compared to such ratio in case of Venus Jewels P. Ltd. 6. We have considered rival submissions and have perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find that there is no evidence brought on record on behalf of the Revenue in this case to prove that the assessee was indulging in making entries of bogus payments in its wage account. In fact the assessee has in his reply dated 9.8.2008 in para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile impounding assessee's wage register that ratio of wages to receipts in case of assessee is higher compared to such ratio in case of Venus Jewels P. Ltd. In these facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the disallowance has been made by the department out of wage expenses by way of estimate only. The disallowance was considered at this second appellate stage by the Tribunal an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
