2018 (2) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stion of law raised is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), for the two assessment years; in the absence of any tangible material recovered in search and seizure forming the basis of addition on the ground of concealment of income. The additions were mere estimations and just as, the penalty with respect to the other years and a sizable quantum for these years, were deleted; so the balance too ought to have been deleted, argued learned Senior Counsel. 2. The assessment years are 2007-08 and 2008-09. The respective orders of penalty imposed an amount of Rs. 4,18,627/- and Rs. 4,23,111/- for the two years, the exact quantum of tax evaded; which was at the minimum as permitted. Annexure....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nsumable medicines disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Similarly in the year 2008-09 the respective additions on the very same heads were (i) Rs. 8,70,000/-, (ii) Rs. 1,88,250/- and (iii) Rs. 1,86,745/-. 5. Penalty orders were issued in all the years right from 2002-03 to 2008-09 by the Assessing Officer. Appeals were filed against the penalty orders as produced in the present revision, of the two years and also the other five years before the first appellate authority. The penalty on additions made with respect to excess salary paid to employees and dis-allowance of expenditure on consumable medicine were deleted by the first appellate authority on the ground that they were mere estimates by the Assessing Officer as sustained and modif....