9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to either absolve the liability to penalty or restrain a best judgment assessment - Here there is no explanation offered for the offence which led to the imposition of penalty. The assessee before the A.O merely claimed that they were not even served with the penalty order. If that be so, atleast then, the assessee ought to have taken steps to obtain the order and challenge the same - Nothing seem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a penalty being imposed. The assessment year is 2009-10. The Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment, noticed the detention and made an equal addition to cover probable omissions and suppression. The first Appellate Authority reduced it to 50%. The Tribunal deleted the addition, finding that the petitioner has accounted the said consignment. 2. Reliance was placed on Eskeyef Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason of the transporters default. The detention was only on that account and not for reason of it having not been accompanied by sufficient documents. It is clear that the goods were declared in the accounts prior to the transport itself. 3. However, in the present case, the facts are different. If, on detection of offence, the transaction was reflected in the books of accounts, that is not a g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the power to carry out best judgment. The only requirement is that the addition should be reasonable. Here the addition was the actual amount and there was a reduction to 50% in first appeal. 4. In such circumstance, we answer the question of law against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. We set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore that of the First Appellate Authority. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
