9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al's order. However, we make it clear that the Assessing Officer has to redo the penalty and impose it only to the extend of the tax evasion with respect to the additions of ₹ 8,48,400/- and ₹ 8,70,000/- in the respective years. The tax evaded on that component of addition with respect to the profit derived on lens, would be the penalty, which is at the minimum as permitted in Section 271(1). - I.T Appeal Nos. 78 And 79 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2018 - Mr. K. Vinod Chandran And Mr. Ashok Menon, JJ. For The Appellant : Sri. T. M.S Reedharan (SR.) SRI. V. P. Narayanan Smt.Divya Ravindran And Sri.V.V. Varghese For The Respondent : Adv. Sri.K.G.Gouri Sankar Rai Sri.Kmv.Pandalai Sri P K R Menon And Sri Jose Joseph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, the Assessing Officer invoked the powers under Section 271(1)(c) for imposition of penalty; which are the orders impugned here. We are informed that the Revenue filed a further appeal from the order of the Tribunal in which certain additions deleted by the Tribunal were restored by the High Court. However, the consideration of the present appeal stands unaffected by the High Court's orders since the additions which were restored have not been dealt with in the present penalty orders. The assessse did not take up a further appeal from the Tribunal's order and the additions sustained by the Tribunal has attained finality, on which, presently the penalty is imposed. 4. For the assessment years 2007-08, the additions sustained i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imate. The sale of lens was found to have generated a profit of ₹ 1800/- per lens. The assessee was found to have conceded only very low profit on the sale of lens. The Tribunal found that the price of lens ranged between 100 to 1800 and the average profit could be only 30% of the sale value. The learned Senior Counsel for the Department would contend that this was not based on mere estimation but was on the basis of the deposition of the assessee and their suppliers. 7. We see from Annexure B order that the order of the Tribunal sustaining the said additions were extracted by the first appellate authority. The assessee on a question being posed to him, admitted that there was some profit margin on sale of PMMA lenses, which was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
