AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (2) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the assessee, all the income-tax matters were being looked after by a tax practitioner, Sri Uttam Roy, who due to his ill health failed to represent the cases of the assessee before the department during the period from June, 2009 to September, 2010. On getting the penalty order raising heavy demand, which was sustained by the ld. C.I.T.(A), the assessee was confounded and at a loss about course of action on his behalf. The assessee also filed an Affidavit from the tax practitioner Sri Uttam Roy affirming that he does not represent other assessees before the department and there was some inadvertent omission/failure/default in taking appropriate course of action in the matter of the assessee. The assessee come across the present lawyer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of Rs.35,36,760/-, which was duly processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. A survey operation was conducted at the premises of the assessee and on the impounded documents, the ld. A.O. completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs. 54,44,430/-, whereby, inter alia, the additions on the following counts over and above shown by the assessee have been made :- i) Income from Sreeman Guest House ... Rs.2,62,086 ii) Income on extra work from Sreeman Construction Rs.3,29,099 iii) Discrepancy in stock in Sreeman Jewellers ... Rs.2,28,500 Rs.8,19,685. The ld. A.O., therefore, initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act holding that the assessee has deliberately concealed the income under the above heads and levi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erence was unearthed which, according to the ld. A.O. remained unexplained to the tune of Rs. 2,28,500/- being the value of 250.022 gms. The ld. A.O. treated this ass concealed income. He was of the view that the assessee deliberately concealed the income by not showing the stock of jewellery to the above extent. 6. On this issue also, the learned counsel for the assessee explained that the discrepancy in stock comes in this way. The customer's gold lying in the vault as per the assessee's letter dated 12/4/2007 is 1559.100 gms. In reconciliation statement vide another letter of the assessee dated 20/4/2009 the assessee explained that the customer's gold lying in the vault is 1309.078 gms. That being the difference, the ld. A.O. found that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... names, addresses along with the quantity of goods in respect of karigar's gold and customer's gold lying in the vault of the assessee and, therefore, the bonafide action of the assessee has to be accepted, inasmuch ass there is no deliberate intention to conceal or file inaccurate particulars of income. In such circumstances, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (supra) comes to the rescue of the assessee. Hence, we are of the view that the penalty in respect of the addition of income from Sreeman Guest House and discrepancy of stock in respect Sreeman Jewellers will not stand to test and it is to be deleted. Accordingly, penalty imposed on these two accounts are deleted. 8. Coming t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the precedence, we observe that on this addition with regard to extra work in respect of Sreeman Construction, document marked SC/50 clearly shows the cash receipt of Rs.15.80 lakhs. Ledger account shows extra work to the extent of Rs.31,16,030/- and the sum of Rs.18,64,129/- is in the form of cheque receipt. The difference comes to only Rs.12,51,901/-. The survey document shows cash receipt of Rs.15.80 lakhs. However, the assessee could not explain further except the cheque receipt under the term 'white' and the cash receipt and this difference was not shown as income of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. A.O. has rightly added this difference as concealed income of the assessee and that being so, we are of the view that the penalty has to ....