9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nowhere there is an allegation in the assessment order that assessee has manipulated or tampered with the records. We are unable to understand the need for assessee to tamper the registers after addition has been made in the assessment. The so called discrepancies that were noticed by the Assessing Officer in the penalty order were not figuring in the assessment order at all. Since there is no need for the assessee to make any changes in the registers, we are unable to understand how, even if subsequently tampered with the registers, would attract penalty on an amount made as agreed addition in the assessment order We are of the opinion that just because certain expenditure claimed is not supported in the course of assessment proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the assessment. Assessing Officer noted that assessee has tried to manipulate entries so as to show that expenditure was claimed genuinely. He was of the opinion that there are discrepancies, interpolation and over-writings done by the assessee after the assessment was completed so as to avoid the penalties. Accordingly, AO came to the conclusion that assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income and levied penalty of ₹ 1,95,000/-. 3. Before the ld.CIT(A) it was the submission that the wage register was prepared and maintained by staff incharge of respective locations and assessee has supplied labour to sixteen industries, some of which were situated outside the state also. Assessee being proprietor h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained the nature of additions made in the assessment to submit that these are genuine mistakes happened in the course of business and since assessee has accepted those discrepancies, there is no need to levy any penalty. Ld. DR however, relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) to submit that assessee deliberately tampered to the Books of Accounts in the course of penalty proceedings and therefore levy of penalty is warranted. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of authorities and paper book placed on record by the assessee. There is no dispute with reference to the fact that assessee is an individual and he supplies labour to various industries located at sixteen places. There is also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Priyadarshini Kolhapur 3/05 97600 117600 20000 TOTAL: 88000 In respect of the Company, Chintamani Plastics, Aurangabad, the wages payments made for the month of January to March, 2005 to the tune of ₹ 56,900/-, ₹ 56,900/- and ₹ 24,000/- were not proved with evidence and hence the same are disallowed for which both the assessee as well as Sri R.R.Mittal, AR of the assessee agreed for the addition. As can be seen from the above, assessee did produce the Books of Accounts, bills and vouchers as maintained by him. Admittedly Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acquaintance registers which has come to ₹ 88,000/-. This could be a genuine discrepancy of posting the entries, however, he has not examined whether there was any manipulation by the assessee either in the cash book or in other registers so as to siphon off funds from the business unit. It was the assessee's explanation that wages in respect of January, February and March in the case of Chintamani Plastics, Aurangabad were genuinely claimed. Since the place was outside the state, he could not furnish the vouchers during the assessment, so, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of ₹ 1,37,800/- for non-production of vouchers/evidence of having spent the amount. It was the contention of the assessee that assessee has rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
