TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1910
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming penalty under section 27I(l)(c) of Rs. 20,78,458/- invoking Explanation-5 A to section 271(1) (c) of the IT. Act 1961, 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the income of Rs,71,53f28Q/- is added to the income of (he assessee on estimation of gross profile at 26.40% of the goods sold, 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that Explanation-5A to section 271(1) (c) of the Act provides that income offered in the return of income subsequent to the search would also amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income and thus it prevents the assessee from contending that income is already offered in the return of income and hence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... delete any of the foregoing grounds of appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the search seizure action was taken on the Zamkudi Group on 09.10.2010. The assessee was the proprietor of M/s. Zamkudi Fashions. The assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w. 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on 20.03.2013 assessing the total income to the tune of Rs. 71,53,280/-. During the course of search and seizure, the assessee undisclosed an amount of Rs. 63,54,000/- as his undisclosed income from business. The residential premise of the assessee was covered u/s 132 of the Act and the business premise was also covered u/s 133A of the Act. The undisclosed income was declared by the assessee on account of estimated gross profit on the unaccounted sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch entries recorded for the period w.e.f. January to March, 2010. Thereafter, a notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee and the assessee filed the return of income on 08.11.2011 declared total income to the tune of Rs. 67,44,280/-. The assessee declared the estimate gross profit of Rs. 63,54,000/- which was unaccounted while assessing the income and filing the return. The assessee took the average cost of per shirt @ 235 and the gross profit was assessed to the tune of Rs. 63,53,741/- which was @ 25.20% of the gross profit. The Assessing Officer accepted the return filed by the assessee but gross profit was assessed @ 26.40% rejecting the claim of the assessee. A total income of the assessee was assessed to the tu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to the tune of Rs. 67,44,280/-. Thereafter, the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act on 20.03.2013 raising the addition of Rs. 4,09,000/- against the income declared by assessee of Rs. 63,54,000/- by estimating the gross profit @ 26.40% (whereas the assessee adopted 25.20%). The return of income filed on 24.09.2010 u/s 139(1) of the Act was nowhere in existence as abated and in the new return of income filed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 20.03.2013. In the said circumstances it is apparent that it is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of any income. The slight change in income on account of adopting the profit ratio on gross profit @ 27.60% nowhere invoke the right t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, conclusion drawn in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and the assertions made by the Ld. respective counsels, if kept in juxtaposition and analysed, we note that the returned income filed u/s 153A of the Act was accepted by the AO and there was no variation in the assessed income vis a vis returned income, therefore, following the aforesaid case of the Tribunal dated 01.09.2015, who is the relative of the assessee, as claimed by Ld. AR and considering the decision of the Jodhpur Bench in Devidas Sukhani Vs. DCIT 158 TTJ 42 and Nagpur Bench in DCIT Vs. Purti Sakhani Vs. DCIT 158 TTJ 12, Punen Bench in Smt. Pramila D. Asthekar Vs. ITO (154 TTJ 46) (Pune Trib.) 61 SOT 113 Pu....