TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs.28,431 imposed by the Assessing Officer under S.271B of the Act which has been confirmed by the CIT(A). 2. Let us first take up for consideration the quantum appeal, being ITA No.456/Hyd/2009. 3. Effective grievance of the assessee in this appeal is against the addition of Rs.39,06,672 made by the Assessing Officer on account of job work charges received by the assessee. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had carried on job work of extraction of rice bran and received job work charges from the client, M/s. Balaji Agro Tech. It had declared receipt of job work charges of Rs.16,02,098. The Assessing Officer notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs.23,04,574, and as it got damaged, they had refused to pay the job work charges as per the original agreement and the job work charges payable were finally got settled at Rs.39,06,672. The Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the assessee in the light of the letter of M/s. Balaji Agro Tech dated 14.12.2006, held that as per the agreement, the job work charges were receivable at Rs.400 per MT, and the same amount to a total of Rs.55,86,180. As such, according to the Assessing Officer, the same should have been shown in the Profit and Loss Account. Since the assessee has shown only an amount of Rs.16,02,098, the differential amount of Rs.39,06,672 was added back. 5. Aggrieved by the above addition of Rs.39,06....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iced that as per Schedule 12 of the audited accounts, power and fuel consumption for the immediately preceding year was Rs.58,65172 as against Rs.73,57,819 for the year under consideration, which clearly indicated that there was only increase in the fuel and power consumption. In this view of the matter, the CIT(A) concluded that there was no merit in the contention of the assessee that the power and fuel consumption has been understated to the extent of damaged rice bran purchased on behalf of M/s. Balaji Agro Tech, which was used by the assessee itself as fuel. The CIT(A) further noticed that as per the agreement which the assessee had with M/s. Balaji Agro Tech, all the raw material was to be supplied to the assessee by the manufacturer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l of the assessee, wherein the grievance of the assessee is against the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs.28,431 imposed by the Assessing Officer under S.271B of the Act for not filing the tax audit report as required under S.44AB of the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the turnover of the assessee was only Rs.39,06,672, and even thus turnover includes the amount of Rs.23,04,574 which represents the rejection by the party, and not Rs.55,86,180 as assessed by the Assessing Officer. Since the turnover of the assessee is below Rs.40 lakhs, the provisions of S.44AB are not applicable to the assessee. He also relied on the confirmation letter filed by M/s. Balaji Agro Tech dated 14.12.2006, fo....