TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up the Revenue's appeal in ITA No.1160/Ahd/2011 for AY 2006-07. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1(i). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals), following the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT 230 CTR 14 (SC)/35 DTR 156 (SC), erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 39,22,599/- on account of disallowance of claim of shortage/loss of material as bad debt by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that fact that the assessee could have claimed the business loss in the year in which such short payment was received on account of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ently, the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 31/12/2007, thereby the Assessing Officer (AO in short) made addition of Rs. 30,27,987/- on the basis of seized papers from the premises of the assessee and Rs. 3,05,766/- on account of cash deposited in the HDFC Bank. The AO also made addition in respect of low house-hold expenses. The AO issued notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In quantum proceedings, the matter reached upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 30,27,987/- and in respect of the addition of Rs. 3,05,766/- the ground was not pressed by the Authorized Representative of the assessee. The AO imposed penalty on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iness" but there is no denial of this admitted fact that the assessee is in the business of Transport. Hence, a vehement contention is that by the very nature of document it did not relate to the business activity of the assessee. However, there was no finding or even an allegation of the Revenue that there was such type of business at all run by the assessee. It was not the case of the revenue that an undisclosed business was unearthed which was not found recorded in the books of account. Barring this paper, there is no material in possession of the Revenue to corroborate that the said paper had any connection with the accounted or unaccounted business activity of the assessee. From the side of the Revenue even no such attempt was ever mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the findings and allow this ground." 5.1. Since the addition in quantum proceedings has been deleted by the Coordinate Bench in IT(SS)A No.80/Ahd/2009(supra), the penalty does not survive, therefore we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, grounds of Revenue's appeal are rejected. 6. Now, we take up the Assessee's appeal in ITA No.653/Ahd/2011 for A.Y.2006-07. The Assessee has raised the following ground(s) of appeal:- 1. The Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of the Ld.A.O. in levying penalty on the addition made of Rs. 3,05,766/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits. The penalty so levied bein....