9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 80,5551- without appreciating that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transaction with respect to its nature and source of investment and therefore the AO was correct in holding the transaction of the assessee with M/s Dev Enterprises as bogus transaction? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is not perverse in staling in para 3.1.8 of his order that penalty levied u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, 1961 is not maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No 25/2015 (F. No. 279/Misc/140120151ITJ dated 31.12.2015 without appreciating that for the year under consideration the income tax payable on total income was computed under normal provisions of the Act and not on Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... craves leave to amend, alter, delete or add grounds which may be necessary." At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor adjournment petition was filed. We heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of printers, ATM Machines and cartridge etc. The assessee has filed the return of income on 12.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 8,62,21,670/-and Book profit u/s 115JB of Rs. 12,41,01,207/-. Subsequently, notice u/s 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued. In compliance the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and furnished the details. The A.O. found that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judicial decisions and observed that the penalty is not sustainable on adhoc disallowances were the income is estimated and deleted the penalty and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the revenue has filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty. We find the Ld.CIT (A) relied on the judicial decisions and observed at para 3.1.8 and 3.1.9 of the order, which is read as under:- 3.1.8 It is also found that the Board itself vide circular F No279/Misc/140/2015/ITJ dated 31/12/2015 has directed that for a period prior to 01/04/16, no penalty is leviable with reference to the additions and disallowances made under normal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
