9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee filed an application for condonation of delay stating that the reason for the delay was that the appeal was to be filed by 08-032015, which was a Sunday, further the partners who were to sign the documents resided in Mumbai and the representative reached Chandigarh with the documents only in the late hours of 09-03-2015. Thus the appeal could only be filed the next day i.e. 10-03-2015. The counsel also pointed out that the requisite fee had been deposited on 0303-2015 and Form 36 signed on that day ,which was well within the period of limitation. Thus Ld. Counsel requested that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. Ld.DR did not object to the same. In view of the same we condone the delay in filing of appeal and proceed wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) vide order dated 27.2.2012. In response to show cause notice under section 271(1)(c), the reply filed by the assessee was found unsatisfactory. The Assessing Officer referring to the order of CIT (Appeals), Shimla, held that the assessee firm had inflated the profits by introducing the income from undeclared sources to get maximum deduction under section 80IC of the Act and thus concealed the particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 1,94,37,60/-. Thereafter the Assessing Officer levied the penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 4. The penalty order was challenged before ld. CIT(Appeals) and it was submitted that cash sales amounted to Rs. 1.94 crores only, out of the total sales of Rs. 47.17 crores and that the said cash sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conclusion that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by way of claiming bogus cash sales to the tune of Rs. 1.94 crores and accordingly, confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that penalty levied on identical addition made in the case of the assessee in the preceding year i.e assessment year 2007-08, had been deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench, vide its order in ITA No.1327/Chd/2012 dated 25.8.2015. 7. We have considered the submissions and material available on record. On perusal of the order of the Hon'ble I.T.A.T., Chandigarh Bench in ITA No.1327/Chd/2012 in the case of the assessee for assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f purchasers are mentioned in the sale bills and whatever the details were submitted, were not subjected to verification. This led to the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that the assessee firm had introduced unaccounted cash in its books of account in the garb of cash sales. It is well settled law that findings given in the quantum proceedings have a probative value, however, assessee is still at liberty to explain the addition in the penalty proceedings so as to explain that levy of the penalty is not justified in the matter because the quantum and penalty proceedings are distinct and independent proceedings. Merely because addition on merit have been confirmed by itself is no ground to sustain the penalty automatically. It is an admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of M. Durai Raj V CIT 83 ITR 484, held that the books of account cannot be rejected if in cash sales, names and address of the purchasers are not mentioned. There is no need to mention name and address in the cash sales. These judgements support the version of the assessee that mere dis-believing the explanation of the assessee would not be enough to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee for merely not mentioning the complete details of the purchaser in the cash sale bills. No evidence has been brought on record of concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of cash sales except the explanation of assessee had been found to be unacceptable. Therefore, it would not foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(c) of the Act would not apply against the assessee. It is a matter of record also that assessee maintained stock register of the raw material purchased and purchase bills were also produced. The assessee also placed the details of raw material used in the manufacturing of its product, therefore, the same would clearly show that assessee has been able to explain that it is not a fit case of levy of penalty, in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Mere non mention of complete details of purchaser in sale bills would not per-se make out a case of concealment of particulars of income. It is well settled law that penalty is not automatically to be imposed in each and every case. The facts and circumstances of the case shall have to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
