TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty of Rs. 84925/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c). 2. Your appellant submits that the Assessing Office has not recorded "Satisfaction of Concealment" before issuing show cause notice and if recorded copy of such satisfaction so recorded was not given to the Appellant though asked for and thereby resulting in levy of penalty not valid. 3. The notice of penalty issued by Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) was vague, capable of two views and not clear as to whether the "penalty was intiated for concealment of income" or "for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income" and therefore levy of penalty is not valid. II. On Merits:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A.Y.2003-04. Similarly, in A.Y.2004-05 also, addition was reduced to 12.5%. It is submitted that for such estimated disallowance, penalty is not justified. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the Tribunal order rendered in the case of M/s.Rolex Tin Works Vs. ITO, in ITA No.2439-2440/Ahd/2012 dated 15.3.2013. As against this, the learned DR of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. He also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Vijay Proteins Vs. ACIT, 80 TTJ 215 (Raj) ii) CIT Vs. Mahaveer Mirror Industries P. Ltd., 353 ITR 553 (Mad) iii) Kalpaka Bazar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 313 ITR 414 (Ker.) 4. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty is not justified. Now, we examine the applicability of various judgments cited by the learned DR of the Revenue. 5. First judgment is the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court rendered in the case of Kalpaka Bazar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 313 ITR 414 (Ker). In our considered opinion, this judgment is not applicable to the present case, because, the facts are different. In that case, the addition/ disallowance made by the AO was not on estimate basis. In that case, the auditor has brought out bogus purchase accounted by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 1,11,193/- representing proforma invoices not representing any actual purchases. In that case, the Tribunal sustained the penalty pertaining to inflation of purchase....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd names and addresses of the transporters along with details of the places from where the goods have been loaded and unloaded, apart from some other minor details. This is also noted by the AO in the present case that the assessee had expressed its inability to produce proprietors of these suppliers. Hence, it is seen from the facts of the present case that there is no such sworn statement of the seller available on record, as per which, it is stated by the seller that no goods was supplied by the supplier, and only accommodation bill is given. Under these facts, although, the addition is partly confirmed, but in our considered opinion, penalty is not justified. 7. Third decision relied on by the learned DR is that of Tribunal decision ....