2013 (11) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal wherein ground No.2 is general in nature and does not survive for adjudication. The lone surviving ground No.1 is reproduced herein under:- "1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1) (c) by the AO of Rs.2,09,323/- that is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts. Both the lower authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars nor concealed any income. The penalty levied being without any merits and justification requires to be quashed." 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of synthetic resins filed its return of income for the assessment year 1993-94 on 26-12-1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rious seized materials found during the search. After the decision of Hon. ITAT, the resultant income comes to Rs.68,61,600/-. Vide this order, the ITAT has sustained the addition of Rs.18,38,811/- against the suppressed production, which was on account of difference between the excise register and seized production records. However, after giving telescopic benefit to the extent of Rs.14,74,772/-, the additional income brought to tax on account of evidence during the search was finally computed at Rs.3,64,039/-. The AO has accordingly levied penalty in respect of this addition. 2.2 The appellant has submitted, during the course of appellate proceedings, that the penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) is not leviable in its case for the following reaso....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngs that the appellant has suppressed the production. I, therefore, hold that the AO was quite justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271( c) of amounting to Rs.2,09,323/-. The case laws as relied upon by the appellant would in no way helpful to the appellant, as the facts in those cases are quite distinct. The action of the AO is hereby upheld and the penalty is confirmed. 3.1 Against these findings of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 3.2 During the course of hearing before us, the learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below while as the learned DR relied on the orders revenue. 4. We have heard the rival submission and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find....