2019 (2) TMI 902

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The issue in dispute and facts and circumstances in both the appeals being identical, both were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. Identical grounds have been raised in both the appeals except change of amount. ITA No.1348/Del/2016 for AY:2005-06 2. The grounds of appeal raised in ITA No. 1348/Del/2016 are reproduced as under: 1. The assessing officer had received information from the Jt. Director of Income Tax(lnv), Varansi that M/s Sajjan Kumar Suman Kumar Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Varansi has made sales of Rs. 4542326/- to me and made a trading addition of Rs. 419711/- by taking G.P. rate @9.24%, on tota....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Act at the rate of 20% of the cash payment of Rs. 78,58,450/-found to be exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. He also found that purchase to the tune of Rs. 45,42,326/-were not recorded on the books of accounts, so he made trading addition of Rs. 4,19,711/- estimating gross profit at the rate of 9.24% i.e. rate which was declared by the assessee in the subsequent year. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of non-compliance by the assessee, he levied penalty of Rs. 1,14,099/-. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty holding that the addition was not done on estimated basis. 4. Before us, the assessee himself represented and filed written submissions. In the submissions, it is mainly submitted that i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for concealment of particulars of the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs SSAs Emerald Meadows (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 73 taxmann.com 248 by dismissing the SLP of the Department. In the present case also the Assessing Officer issued notice dated 29/12/2009 which is also mentioned in the penalty order, in which he has not specified the limb for which penalty was initiated. Even in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not mention as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty had been initiated against the assessee. Therefore the show cause notice for levy of the penalty itself is invalid an....