2017 (2) TMI 1080

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. We come to basic facts first. The assessee firm is engaged in civil construction business. It filed its return on 29.09.2009 stating income of Rs. 39,26,960/-. This followed department's survey action conducted at its premises on 07.10.2009. The assessee's partner Shri Mahendra T. Patel deposed in course thereof that its relevant books of account were at Ankleshwar office and not at Patan. The assessee's Accountant Shri Bharat K. Patel also stated in the same tune. The survey team at this stage seems to have pointed out that a comparison of assessee's audit reports for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 indicated contract expenses of the latter assessment year to be much more than those pertaining to the former assessment year. It sou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a corresponding trend in its returned income as well from Rs. 3.38 crores to Rs. 3.87crores whereas in succeeding assessment year 2010-11, the expenditure as well as income had seen a downward trend to the extent of 24% and 14% respectively. The Assessing Officer rejected all this in penalty order dated 28.06.2012. He heavily relied upon survey statements disclosure of additional income of Rs. 1.3 crores to conclude that the assessee had in fact deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer thus levied the impugned penalty of Rs. 44,54,540/-. The CIT(A) concurs with the same in the lower appellate order under challenge. 5. We have heard both the parties. Case file perused. The assessee strongly argues that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f expenses. Something further surprises us is that all the above heads of inflated expenses involve precise round figures which have nowhere been tallied with the actual ones in books of accounts. The Revenue strongly rests its case on assessee's partners survey disclosure of Rs. 1.3crores and payment of taxes thereupon. It however fails to rebut Board's circular itself dated 10.03.2003 that no significance is attached to such survey statement in absence of any corresponding evidence being collected. We repeat that the same is not the case here. 8. Shri Kurien invites our attention to hon'ble apex court's decision in MAK DATA Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). We find facts of the said case to be altogether different then those in ....