9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round that no addition was made in order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for A.Y. 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2006-07. AO is directed to delete the penalty. A.Y. 2007-08 - original return was filed on 31/03/2008, wherein, the total income was declared at ₹ 15,03,615/-. In the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, the income declared was ₹ 17,21,560/- meaning thereby additional income of ₹ 2,17,945/- was made and consequently addition of ₹ 1,40,000/- was made in order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. The difference of tax payable comes to ₹ 1,20,482/- between the original return and return made u/s 153A - assessee explained that the return of income filed on 24/08/2009 was accepted by the ld. DCIT while passing order u/s 143(3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Mum/2012) order dated 01/09/2015. This factual matrix was not controverted by Shri O.P. Meena, ld. DR. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 01/09/2015 for ready reference and analysis:- These two appeals by the assessee in respect of A.Y.rs 2002-03 and 2007-08 are directed against the common order of the Ld. CIT(A)-37, Mumbai dt. 15.12.2011. 2. The common grievance in both these years is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs ITO 154 TTJ 46, Tribunal Jodhpur Bench in the case of Devidas Sukhani Vs DCIT 158 TTJ 42 and Tribunal Nagpur Bench in the case of DCIT Vs Purti Sakhar Karkhana 153 TTJ 12. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities but could not bring any distinguished decision. 7. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions brought to our notice. The undisputed fact is that the returned income of the assessee has been accepted by the AO while making the impugned assessment order. A perusal of the assessment order shows that none of the income relates to any incriminating documents found during the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the ld. respective counsels, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we note that the returned income filed u/s 153A of the Act was accepted by the Assessing Officer and there was no variation in the assessed income vis- -vis returned income, therefore, following the aforesaid case of the Tribunal dated 01/09/2015, who is the relative of the assessee, as claimed by ld. AR and considering the decision of the Jodhpur Bench in Devidas Sukhani vs DCIT 158 TTJ 42 and Nagpur Bench in DCIT vs Purti Sakhar Karkhana 153 TTJ 12, Pune Bench in Smt. Pramila D. Asthekar vs ITO (154 TTJ 46) (Pune Trib.) ; 61 SOT 113 (Pune), we find merit in the argument of the assessee and allow the appeal of the assessee on the ground that no addition was made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
