TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequently, a revised return was filed on 1st Nov., 1993 in which the income was declared at Rs. 14,93,687. The AO completed the assessment on 7th June, 1996 on a total income of Rs. 33,81,466. In the first round of appeals, the CIT(A) while dealing with Appeal No. 357/1993-94 vide his order dt. 29th March, 1994 allowed a relief of Rs. 8,83,040 and also set aside the assessment. In accordance with the directions of the CIT(A), the assessment was reframed under s. 143(3)/250 on 26th Aug., 1994 on a total income of Rs. 24,98,430. When the appeal again came before the CIT(A) in Appeal No. 207/1994-95, he again set aside the assessment vide order dt. 9th Jan., 1995. Again, following the direction of the CIT(A), the assessment was reframed on 7th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concealed income in respect of these items but he reduced the amount of penalty in view of the finding of the Tribunal. 4. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us against the confirmed penalty and has raised the plea that the CIT(A) has grossly erred in directing the AO to recalculate the penalty on the basis of the additions sustained by the Tribunal. The reasons for the assailment of the CIT(A)'s finding has been put forth by the assessee that the CIT(A) has not disposed of the appeal in a judicious manner because in the given facts and circumstances of this case, the penalty should have been deleted by quashing the penalty order itself. 5. This is an undisputed fact that initially a penalty of Rs. 9,75,000 was imposed under s. 271(1)(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her must have given more or less equal quantity of gold ornaments to his other daughter-in-law. He also gave sufficient gold ornaments to his wife, namely, Smt. Devki Soni. According to the learned Authorised Representative, the gold ornaments belonging to Smt. Devki Soni was kept in the possession of the appellant though these ornaments have become the properties of families of both the brothers. So, according to the learned Authorised Representative, even if the Department did not consider the fact that gold ornaments weighing 1574.640 gms. did not belong to Smt. Devki Soni, although it was explained by the assessee, a penalty cannot be levied on this account even if the additions have been sustained by the Tribunal. The reasons put forth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain same is the position, i.e., the additions have been sustained on doubtful estimations. The learned Authorised Representative has relied on the order of the Tribunal which was rendered by the Jaipur Bench in ITA No. 524/Jp/1990 for the asst. yr. 1984-85, reported in Kanhaiya Lal Doshi vs. Asstt. CIT (1996) 56 TTJ (Jp) 207, in which it has been held that in the absence of any positive evidence that the gold and gold ornaments and silver bullion recovered during search did, in fact, belong to assessee. While getting successive reliefs an every stage, major portion of gold and bullion held to be belonging to other member of assessee's family and finally addition of gold weighing 522.340 gms. and silver bullion weighing 4.865 gms. sustained ....