2016 (3) TMI 1158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....This is an appeal filed by the assessee emanating from the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-II, Jaipur dated 05.09.2013 and the only ground is in respect of confirmation of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 25,245/-. 2. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 26.12.2007 were that the assessee is in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at Rs. 3,03,572/-, therefore, the difference between the two amounting to Rs. 4,45,695/- was taxed in the hands of the assessee. 2.1 When this addition was challenged before ld. CIT (A), the impugned trading addition was restricted to Rs. 75,000/- only. Since the finally taxed addition was sustained to the extent of Rs. 75,000/-, therefore, impugned penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide order d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s placed reliance on a decision of ITAT Jaipur Bench pronounced in the case of ITO vs. Bhansali Trading Corporation, 42 ITR 254 (JP Trib.). 5. After considering the submissions of both the sides, prima facie, I am of the view that in this case if the AO had found that certain purchases were doubtful, then it was expected from him to make the addition of those purchases which were not found veri....