9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant : Shri Suresh Ojha For the Respondent : Shri N.A. Joshi - D.R. ORDER Per: N K Saini: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07/12/2011 of Ld. CIT(A), Jodhpur. The following grounds have been raised in this appeal:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), which is bad in law and bad in facts. 2. That penalty imposed on the basis of order passed u/s 143(3) dated 20/11/2008. But Ld. A.O. failed to specify in the notice the nature of default i.e. concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. That penalty imposed on the basis of lump sum trading ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 6,82,891/- (Rs.68,45,500 (-) ₹ 61,62,609/-). The Assessing Officer calculated rotational sales at 1.5 times for a period of nine months at ₹ 10,24,337/- on which lump sum trading addition of ₹ 2,46,558/- was made. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. In the penalty proceedings, the assessee submitted that the addition was made on estimate basis, therefore, no penalty was leviable. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions of the assessee and levied the penalty of ₹ 83,000/-. The said penalty was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Now the assessee is in appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee neither concealed the income nor furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed by ld. DRI found that levy of penalty is not justified. On estimation basis the stock was taken by survey party and it was not found more but it was found less. It means the stock was sold which could not be entered in the books of account. Therefore, if any addition could have been made that could have been made on the profit on short stock found. Even otherwise, this is an estimation of stock during the course of survey, therefore, difference on account of estimation of stock, in my view, at least penalty should not have been levied. Accordingly, I cancel the levy of penalty. 7. On a similar issue, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading Rubber Industries reported at (2013) 95 D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
