TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 business of trading of gems and jeweller....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce 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 dated 29.03.2011 was imposed of Rs. 25,245/-. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h 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 verifiable. Instead of making certain specific addition i....