9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (1) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had not maintained day-to-day stock account of Bidi leaves. The ITO, therefore, rejected the trading results declared by the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 14,850 by adoption of gross profit rate of 13 per cent which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The assessee has come up in further appeal before us and the learned counsel for the assessee vehemently urged that the assessee had maintained regular books of account including manufacturing and production account. He urged that the mere fact that the assessee had not maintained day-to-day stock particulars of Bidi leaves should not have been a reason for rejection of the trading results, disclosed by the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15th September, 1971 showing income at Rs. 10,000. Subsequently it filed a revised estimate on 10th Mar, 1972 showing income of Rs. 40,000. The assessee filed Return on 13th September, 1972 showing income at Rs. 47,686 and it was finally assessed on an income of Rs. 50,050. According to the ITO, the estimate filed on 10th March, 1972 should have been filed by 15th February, 1972. On this ground as also on the ground that the assessed income was in excess of the returned income, the ITO came to the conclusion that the assessee was liable to penalty. He, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 273. 6. When the matter went to the Commissioner (Appeals) he found that the ITO had not mentioned the sub-section of section 273 un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty did not apply his mind. He did not mention the sub-section of section273 under which he intended to impose penalty and that he had not even quantified the amount of penalty. He, therefore, submitted that such an order of the ITO should not have been sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned departmental Repersentative supported the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. We have heard the submissions of the rival parties. We find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the penalty order would show that the ITO has not mentioned the sub-section of section 273 under which he wanted to impose the penalty. Even, the quantum of penalty was not mentioned in the penalty order. On a considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
