TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mated basis. 2. Earlier, this appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 07/11/2017, which was subsequently recalled vide M.A. order dated 23/01/2018. Hence, this appeal has come up for hearing before us. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee derives his income from contract and job work of iron fabrication. For the year under consideration, he has filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,46,770/- on 30/09/2008. Subsequently, a survey U/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 22/4/2009 wherein it was found that the assessee had not kept any books of account in relation to its business and in his statement recorded ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of levying of penalty become non-existent and hence, there was no justification for levying the said penalty. It was further submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) could not be challenged due to death of assessee, hence, none filing of appeal in the quantum proceedings by the assessee should not be considered adversely. It was further submitted that even the department has not filed any further appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that there is absolutely no positive evidence against the assessee that it has earned more than what has been declared in his return of income despite the fact that the survey proceedings were taken against the assessee on 20/4/2009 and in absence of any positive evidence, no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c surrender based on voluminous documents found during the course of survey and the return was filed after the survey proceedings which is not the facts in the present case. The ld AR further relied on the various decisions for the proposition that where the additions have been made on estimate basis, which was substantially reduced in the appellate proceedings, the same do not qualify for levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, the ld AR has relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahendra Singh Khedla (2012) 252 CTR 0453 (Raj) and CIT Vs. Krishi Tyre Retrading & Rubber Industries (2013) 263 CTR 484 (Raj). Besides, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer, though justified in making some addition, however, it observed that even the Assessing Officer had made an estimated addition for he was not sure as to exact amount of addition, to be made and considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Tribunal modified the order by observing that "we find justification in the order of the lower authorities who have rightly made the addition on estimate basis. But the same is looking on higher side due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. By modifying both the orders of the lower authorities, we restrict the addition to Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. one lakh) only. Thus, the assessee will get the relief of Rs. 44,000 (Rs. forty four thousand) from the orders of the lower authorities on ad ....