TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of running a Rice mill and filed the Return of Income on 27.09.2014 with total income of Rs. 19,41,490. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer issued Notice under Section 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act along with Questionnaire. The main business of the assessee is rice milling and procure paddy from various locations and process it to produce Rice. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee submitted Books of accounts and copy of VAT Returns whereas the Assessing Officer on perusal of the records, found that the assessee could not furnish the confirmation in regard to sundry creditor of Rs. 1,62,654 from Sukhjika Industr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Officer has rejected the additional evidence filed by the assessee being confirmation letter from the creditor under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules with the observation that the assessee has failed to produce the documents before the Assessing Officer and hence rejected the additional evidence and confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(Appeals), the assessee has filed an appeal with the Tribunal. 4. On the issue of levy of penalty, the learned Authorised Representative has relied on the judicial decisions and submitted Paper Book and filed written submissions. The contention of the learned Authorised Representative that the assessee is not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontention of the ld. AR that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable as the assessee has not contested the quantum i.e. Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act to buy peace with the Department whereas the CIT(Appeals) has overlooked the evidence produced before in the appellate proceedings and confirmed the penalty order of Assessing Officer. On this issue, we find the CIT(Appeals) has rejected the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. We are of the opinion that the assessee shall not gain any benefit by delaying the litigation and support our view on the principle of natural justice, and admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee. On the second disputed issue with respect to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled before CIT(A) who rejected it as an additional evidence not permissible under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules; the appellant had sought permission for allowing this additional evidence. The learned CIT (A) and the ACIT ought to have appreciated that the appellant had produced at the time of assessment the primary evidence of (1) purchase invoice in a format prescribed by relevant law; (2) Bank statement showing e payment to the creditor and (3) the details of transaction as recorded in the books of account regularly maintained and audited and hence the addition in the original assessment is patently wrong and cannot form the basis for penalty. iii. The learned ACIT erred in levying penalty invoking Sec....