2017 (1) TMI 1241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act" in former appeal and U/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in latter case; respectively. The Revenue on the other hand has instituted its appeal against the CIT(A)-IV, Baroda's order dated 22.12.2014 deleting penalty of Rs. 8,84,290/- as imposed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 26.03.2013 in assessment year 2001-02 in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. We first come to assessee's pleadings. Its sole substantive ground in ITA No.537/Ahd/2015 for assessment year 2000-01 seeks to delete Section 69 unexplained investment in stock made by both the lower authorities amounting to Rs. 25,32,450/-. Its appeal ITA No.2187/Ahd/2011 for assessment year 2001-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n record. A perusal of the statement submitted to the bank by the assessee and stock as per books clearly revealed that there is a quantitative difference which has not been satisfactorily explained except submitting that part of it may relate to earlier years. Therefore, addition made by the authorities below is justified. However, before confirming the addition, it has to be examined whether such discrepancy existed in some earlier years, i.e. Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2000-01 as submitted by the ld.AR. No stock statement submitted to the bank has been furnished to us for either of the two years, but for the sake of natural justice, we would like the Assessing Officer to ask the assessee to submit the stock statement furnished to the b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... He then reopened assessment in assessee's case pertaining to previous assessment year 2000-01 followed by consequential re-assessment being framed on 28.03.2013 adding the remaining alleged discrepancy of Rs. 25,32,450/- i.e. Rs. 41,39,130-16,06,680/- (supra). 4. The assessee preferred two separate appeals. The CIT(A) confirms Assessing Officer's action in principle in both assessment years. The only exception is that he has restricted gross profit addition in assessment year 2001-02 made @18.97% on Rs. 16,06,680/- only instead of the entire addition sum in first round of Rs. 41,39,130/-. This leaves the assessee aggrieved in both the impugned assessment years. 5. We have heard both the parties. Case files perused. Learned counsels ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....This renders its additional grounds raised in the appeal challenging the impugned additions on the basis of above case law as rendered infructuous. 6. This leaves us with Revenue's appeal ITA No.695/Ahd/2015. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty in question amounting to Rs. 8,84,290/- as pertaining to unaccounted stock addition of Rs. 16,06,680/- and profit thereupon by treating the same as unrecorded sales of Rs. 3,04,787/- followed by yet another disallowance of interest. There can hardly be any dispute that we have already deleted the former two quantum additions in preceding paragraphs. The impugned penalty thus has no legs to stand. The third disallowance is of interest expenses. The Assessing Officer held the assessee to have d....