9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has concealed the particulars of income. 2. Both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts of the appellant s case in not appreciating the fact that the appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of his income nor concealed its particulars and the addition/disallowance made to the returned income is not the concealed income of the appellant. 3. It is submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that in this case, the additions made by the AO were confirmed by the learned CIT(A) to the extent of 30%, and when the matter was carried before the Tribunal by both sides, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, retaining the confirmation of disallowance to the ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Lalit Thakar (HUF) Vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Ahmedabad in ITA No.608/AHD/2006 dated 16.05.2006 where the facts were that the Assessing Officer estimated and determined the income of the assessee and a penalty was levied. However, Ld. CIT(A) in the case in hand relied on the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of C.I.T. (Addl.) vs. Smt. Chandrakanta reported in 205 ITR 607 (M.P.) in that case issue before the Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh was whether the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty on the ground that income was determined on the basis of estimation. Hon ble High Court observed and held as under:- That being so, it is difficult to swallow that since the assessee s income was assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty is not leviable. In the present case, the assessee is maintaining books and without pointing out any specific defect in books and making addition on that basis, addition is made by estimating the income. Therefore, facts are different and hence, this judgment is not applicable with present case. 6. From the above para of the Tribunal order, we find that the Tribunal has duly considered the judgment of the Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Chandrakanta reported in 205 ITR 607 (MP), on which reliance was placed by the learned CIT(A) also. In the case of Smt. Chandrakantha (supra) it was held by the Hon ble MP High Court that it is not acceptable that since the income of the assessee was assessed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
