9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has also not disputed the VAT turnover and the estimation of income on the VAT turnover by the Ld. AO. CIT(A)-NFAC has rightly determined that the assessee has misreported the turnover attracting the penal provisions u/s. 270A of the Act and hence confirmed the penalty u/s. 270A of the Act levied by the Ld. AO. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and hence no interference is required. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 173/Viz/2022 - - - Dated:- 6-3-2023 - SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN , HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Sri G. V. N. Hari , Advocate For the Respondent : Sri ON ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come U/s. 44AD of the Act by declaring income @ 8% on a turnover of Rs. 58,22,000/-. The Ld. AO on scrutinizing the VAT returns found that the assessee declared turnover of Rs.1,73,88,702/- and has paid VAT tax accordingly. The Ld. AO found that the sources for cash deposits is nothing but the turnover, which was also accepted by the assessee, and estimated the income @ 8% on the turnover of Rs. 1,73,88,702/- as declared in VAT returns and framed the assessment by making an addition of Rs. 13,91,096/-. Subsequently, the Ld. AO also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 270A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC the Authorized Represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the assessee while showing the turnover at Rs. 58,22,000/- in the return of income filed by the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Accountant has estimated the turnover on reverse basis without considering the VAT turnover. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has accepted the estimated profit of 8% on the VAT turnover @ 13,91,000/- and pleaded that there is no misreporting in the return of income and hence the penalty levied U/s. 270A of the Act be quashed. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. AR [Departmental Representative] submitted that the assessee has willfully underreported the turnover and has produced the Profit Loss Account showing the same as profit as filed in in her return of income. The Ld. DR further sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
