2015 (11) TMI 1785

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rity, Mumbai.   2. During hearing of these appeals, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri J. P. Bairagra, contended that identical issues arose in the case of Smt. Sarla M. Sanghvi which is borne out from identical facts (ITA No.1230 & 1231/Mum/2012) order dated 01/09/2015. This factual matrix was not controverted by Shri O.P. Meena, ld. DR. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 01/09/2015 for ready reference and analysis:- "These two appeals by the assessee in respect of A.Y.rs 2002-03 and 2007-08 are directed against the common order of the Ld. CIT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see stated that the assessed income is same as the returned income, there is no addition made by the AO which could justify the levy of penalty. The Ld. Counsel heavily relied upon the decision of the Tribunal Pune Bench in the case of Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs ITO 154 TTJ 46, Tribunal Jodhpur Bench in the case of Devidas Sukhani Vs DCIT 158 TTJ 42 and Tribunal Nagpur Bench in the case of DCIT Vs Purti Sakhar Karkhana 153 TTJ 12. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities but could not bring any distinguished decision.   7. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions brought to our notice. The undisputed fact is that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bservation made in the assessment order, leading to addition made to the total income, conclusion 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 analyzed, we note that the returned income filed u/s 153A of the Act was accepted by the Assessing Officer and there was no variation in the assessed income vis-à-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 Sakhar ....