TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1431
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur dated 03.11.2016 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The notice of appeals was sent to the assessee through RPAD on 22.10.2018 for today i.e.20.11.2018. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. It appears that the assessee is not keen to defend the impugned orders. In such circumstances, we are proceeding to decide the appeals with the assistance of ld. DR and the material available on record. We will first take up the appeal of Revenue in ITA No. 121/PUN/2017 for assessment year 2010-11. ITA No. 121/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 3. The Revenue has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur by raising following grounds: "1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty of Rs. 81,13,960/- in respect of aforesaid addition. The assessee filed appeal against the penalty order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The First Appellate Authority deleted the penalty by placing reliance on the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No.468/PN/2014 dated 29.01.2016. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of Assessing Officer dated 18.06.2014 levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and prayed for reversing the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have perused the orders of Authorities below. The only issue raised in appeal is against deleting penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Exxon Mobil Lubricants (P) Ltd 328 ITR 17 (Del). From the above, it is evident that the addition itself having being deleted, the penalty on the said addition has no legs to stand. I am also constrained to point out the cursory approach of the AO. A plain reading of the penalty order reveals that no finding of even the quantum of income, for which inaccurate particulars have been filed, is not mentioned. In the absence of the same, the very basis of determination of tax sought to be evaded is a mystery. The AO has made no efforts to point out how the appellant has filed inaccurate particulars vis-a-vis this issue or concealed his income. The AO simply repeated what the CIT(A) has stated in his appellate order and concluded that ina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t year 2010-11 is dismissed. 8. The Revenue in appeal for assessment year 2012-13 has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by raising following grounds: "1. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and law, whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim of expenditure pertaining to earlier year ignoring the facts as the assessee has been following the mercantile system of accountancy? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the CIT(A) was not justified in following decision of the ITAT in assessee's case for AY.2010-11 ignoring the fact that additional sugarcane price paid over and above the purchase price fixed by the Government is nothing but appropriation of profit which....