2018 (11) TMI 1488

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham(in short "the AO") dated 27.02.2013 under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act,1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. Ground No.1 to 4 states that the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law and confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition of amount of Rs. 5,74,774/-. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment order was passed u/s.144 of the Act wherein Rs. 1,36,64,731/- on account of excess expenses were disallowed by the AO and Rs. 5,74,774/- on account of suppression of receipts were disallowed by the AO. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 20,84,970/- made on account of disallowance of excess expenses out of Rs. 13,66,473/- . T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al before this Tribunal. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee, however written submissions by Shri D.R.Adhia, AR of the assessee has been made therein it has been contended that the assessee has disclosed receipts of Rs. 13,92,98,644/- which is 99.5% and the short fall of Rs. 5,74,774/- is only 0.5% when a person shows such huge receipts of 99.5% he will never considered to suppress of meager difference of 0.5%. It is specifically mentioned in various judicial laws that unless the conduct of the assessee is found to be not bonafide no penalty is leviable in respect of such addition. The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition because of non reconciliation of the amount, thus, this is a mistake which can be considered as a bonafide mistake ....