2015 (11) TMI 494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No. 1357/Chd/2012, for the assessment year 2006- 07, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty so levied by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of wrong entry in account books due to non receipt of proper and complete documents by assessee firm and thereby booking under wrong heads by treating the same as concealment? ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalty so levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of wrong entry in account books ignoring the trite law as settled by Hon'ble Supreme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11.2008 surrendered a sum of Rs. 2,15,439/- as income on gross receipts of Rs. 21,54,387/-. Another communication dated 8.12.2008 was submitted by the assessee that due to bonafide mistake, Rs. 10 lacs was credited to the security account while for the balance amount, profit @ 5.36% was offered for taxation. The case of the assessee was referred under Section 142(2A) of the Act for special audit by the Assessing Officer and made an addition of Rs. 21,54,387/- on account of suppression of receipts from PWD, Sirhind vide assessment order dated 28.5.2009 (Annexure A-1). Another addition was made by the Assessing Officer by rejecting the books of account and income of the assessee was estimated @ 12% on total turnover of Rs. 9,59,16,586/-. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11 decided on 9.2.2012, it was submitted that the penalty imposed was unsustainable. In fact the assessee had never claimed any benefit under TDS certificate as it had not been issued till the time of filing of the return. The finding recorded by the Assessing Officer, confirmed by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal for levy of penalty are against the record. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue supported the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The assessee is a contractor carrying on contracts of various government bodies. The assessee had short declared contract receipts from the civil work undertaken by it by Rs. 21,54,387/-. Some p....