2014 (8) TMI 936

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :             1. That the worthy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patiala, is not justified in upholding the penalty on the addition in husk account as sustained by the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh.           2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patiala, is not justified in confirming the penalty on the estimated addition of the value of husk of Rs. 2,54,900 without considering the facts that the addition in husk account is only on estimated basis.           3. That the learned Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had sustained the addition on account of understatement of husk sold at Rs. 2,54,900, on account of low household expenses at Rs. 80,000 and had upheld the addition of Rs. 23,461 on account of difference in stock of basmati rice and bardana. The Assessing Officer held the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of Rs. 3,58,361 and levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 1,09,660. 6. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty on account of low household expenses and partly on account of difference in stock of basmati rice and bardana and confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of ....