9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 32.40 lacs for AY 1992-93 and 1993- 94 respectively. That is, as it appears, the undisclosed profit for the two years is in fact in a much higher sum of ₹ 5.74 lacs (Rs.30.12 lacs - ₹ 24.38 lacs) and ₹ 4.74 lacs (Rs.37.14 - ₹ 32.40 lacs) for the two consecutive years respectively. All these facts are on the basis of the material on record and, in fact, admitted. The income had, rather, been assessed a much lower rate of 2.5%, applied uniformly for both the manufacturing and trading turnover. How then, and on what basis, one wonders, the assessee states that he has not concealed particulars of income when he had concealed the turnover on the purchases from SICOP. In fact, penalty would arise even if the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he dates and figures in the narrative is for AY1992-93, with that for AY 1993-94 being in brackets. Assessment in the first instance was made at an income of ₹ 2,79,000 (Rs.3,44,000), as against the returned income of ₹ 23,000 (Rs.29,125), comprising ₹ 11,000 (Rs.17,125) as profit of the assessee s trunk business, and the balance ₹ 12,000 (Rs. 12,000) as rental income. Addition to the returned income was made by applying a net profit rate of eight per cent. on the assessee s turnover of ₹ 31,49,384 (Rs.38,51,480) after rejecting the assessee s accounts u/s. 145(3) vide separate orders u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 dated 24.3.1998. The assessee had earlier per the original return (filed on 18.6.1993 for both the years) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.5% in first appeal, and the assessee did not carry the matter further. Penalty proceedings, initiated at the conclusion of the assessments, were proceeded with. Penalty was levied in respect of the additional profit on the undisclosed turnover (i.e., with reference to the original return); the assessee not furnishing any reply in response to the show cause notice u/s. 274 dated 06.8.2014. In appeal, it was contended that penalty could not be levied as the business profit was estimated. The ld. CIT(A) found no merit in the assessee s case as the assessee had suppressed his turnover. It was, therefore, a clear case of suppression of income. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. I have heard the parties, and perused the material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .38 lacs) and ₹ 4.74 lacs (Rs.37.14 - ₹ 32.40 lacs) for the two consecutive years respectively. All these facts are on the basis of the material on record and, in fact, admitted. The income had, rather, been assessed a much lower rate of 2.5%, applied uniformly for both the manufacturing and trading turnover. How then, and on what basis, one wonders, the assessee states that he has not concealed particulars of income when he had concealed the turnover on the purchases from SICOP. In fact, penalty would arise even if the assessee had declared the same profit rate as on the disclosed turnover in the reassessment proceedings. This is as the same would only be upon detection by the Department. Reference in this regard be made to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
