2017 (2) TMI 1214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing broadly common, both the appeals are being disposed of by way of a consolidated order. ITA No.258/Rjt/2012 for AY 1999-2000 - Revenue's appeal 2. The AO seeks to assail the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad ['CIT(A)' in short] in its order dated 01/04/2011 in quantum assessment. 3. Briefly stated, the assessment of the assessee was reopened on receipt of certain information during the search proceedings of Balaji Group of cases. The assessee is a proprietor of M/s.Kataria Enterprises and is a sole distributor of M/s.Balaji Wafers Pvt.Ltd. The assessment in this case was reopened and reassessment order was passed by making addition of Rs. 50,83,250/- on account of suppressed profits. The undisclos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....He thus granted relief of Rs. 39,91,182/- in GP estimations on unaccounted sales. 5. The Revenue is aggrieved by the aforesaid relief in the present appeal. 6. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under:- 1. The Ld.CIT(A)-I, Rajkot has erred in law and on fact of the case in restricting the addition made by the A.O. in giving relief of Rs. 39,91,182/- to the assessee. 2. On the facts of the case, Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order of the A.O, dated 07/05/2010. 7. The Ld.DR for the Revenue Mr.Lalit P.Jain contended that the revision of suppressed sales by the CIT(A) is not proper. The Ld.DR further submitted that the GP estimations on unaccounted sales at 03.75% following the decision of the Tribunal in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ote that the unaccounted sales were modified by the CIT(A) in the earlier proceeding which has not been disputed by the AO. Further, no such dispute has arisen in the grounds of appeal also. Therefore, there is no occasion for us to examine the aforesaid issue raised orally by the ld.AR in the course of hearing. Thus, this point in issue cannot be entertained. 9.1. We now advert to the second limb of argument on behalf of Revenue that the CIT(A) has committed error in modifying the GP rate at 03.56% as against 07.29% applied by the AO on suppressed sales. In this regard, we note that the AO issued notice under s.142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") asking the assessee to show-cause as to why the GP or u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal raised by the by the Assessee reads as under:- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Rajkot has erred in dismissing the appeal whereby upholding the penalty or passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act by the Assessing Officer levying penalty of Rs. 3,27,670/- is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 12. The AO while making the quantum addition towards estimation of GP on suppressed sales also invoked penalty proceedings under s.271(1)(c) and imposed penalty of Rs. 3,27,670/- on various additions made to the total income of the assessee. 13. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the penalty order. 14. The ld.AR in the second appeal before us submitted at the outset that the penalty notice has been ....