9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parties and perused the material available on record. Both the appeals are decided as under ITA.No.1765/Del./2018 - A.Y. 2007 2008 : 3. The A.O. in the penalty order noted that assessee filed return of income at Rs. 2,14,211/-. The assessee was directed to produce books of account, bills and vouchers etc., but not produced. Therefore, the A.O. framed ex-parte assessment order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, by rejecting the books of account of assessee under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. The net profit @ 12% on the gross contractual receipts was applied and income was taken at Rs. 19,85,207/- from business and civil construction. The assessing officer accordingly initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act and applied higher net profit rate at 12% against the contractual receipt to make the addition. However, the Ld. CIT(A) reduced the application of the net profit rate to 8% by excluding cost of material supplied and sales tax. Therefore, it is not a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessing officer made estimated addition which is reduced by the Ld. CIT(A) substantially. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by Learned Counsel for the assessee apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. Since no definite finding of fact have been given for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and income is merely estimated, therefore, I am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ridabad in ITA.No.1301/Del./2016, Dated 31.01.2019 in which it was held as under : IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES "G" : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. & SHRI O.P. KANT, A.M. ITA.No.1301/Del./2016 Assessment Year 2007-2008 M/s. M.M. Industries, NIT Faridabad. PAN AALFM2320G C/o. RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049. Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-II(4), Faridabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate. For Revenue : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty have been levied. Therefore, the issue is covered by the Judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. SSAs Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241, which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 73 taxmann.com 248. 4. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, submitted that the assessee did not raise this issue specifically before the authorities below. Therefore, new point should not be allowed to be raised at this stage. 5. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that penalty is not leviable in the matter. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. SSAs Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241 confirmed the Order of the Tribunal in which the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
