9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of both the assessees for all the relevant assessment years. See ACIT Vs. Ram Thanga Nagai Maligai [2015 (9) TMI 1101 - ITAT CHENNAI ] - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 2255 & 2256Mds/2015, I.T.A. Nos. 2257 & 2258Mds/2015 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2016 - N. R. S. Ganesan (Judicial Member) And A. Mohan Alankamony (Accountant Member) For the Appellant : A. S. Sriraman, Advocate For the Respondent : A. V. Sreekanth, JCIT ORDER A. Mohan Alankamony (Accountant Member) These four appeals are filed by the different assessees aggrieved by the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai both dated 18.09.2015 in ITA Nos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additions were made in the case of both the assessee s for the relevant assessment years. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty levied on the assessees because the entire addition was made due to survey proceedings which otherwise could not have been detected. 6. On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the learned Assessing Officer simply by relying on various decisions without elaborating on the intricacies of the findings of the survey proceedings. 7. Before us, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the discrepancy arose on account of impurity arising out of the stock and related arithmetic computations. It was further submitted that the additions for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions made by the learned Assessing Officer and did not agitate in order to avoid prolonged litigation and accordingly filed their respective returns of income. On an identical situation, this Bench of the Tribunal cited supra had deleted the penalty by observing as follows:- 7. We have heard both the parties and carefully perused the materials available on record. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the assessee has not concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars in the return of income filed before the Revenue. The excess stock found at the time of search was taken into account for arriving at the income of the assessee during the relevant assessment year as observed by Ld. Assessing Officer in his assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
