TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 986
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t year 2008-09 for adjudication. ITA No.396/NAG/2016 A.Y.2008-09 2. In ITA No.396/NAG/2016 for assessment year 2008-09, the Revenue has following grounds of appeal: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting the addition on A/c of unexplained investment of Rs. 60,77,044/- which has not been recorded in the books of the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that since an addition of Rs. 6,51,107/- has already been made in the original assessment order, no further addition is required to be made with respect to the shortage of stock. 3. Any other ground that may be raised at the time of hearing." 3. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, has granted partial relief to the assessee. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before us against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) as per the grounds mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. 5. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also given considerable thought to the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals). For the sake of completeness, Para 4.3 and 4.4 of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)‟s order are relevant for extraction and the same are as follows: "4.3. I have gone through the assessment order, grounds of appeal, submissions of the appellant and the remand report of the AO. I find that detailed inventory of stock was prepared during the course of survey proceedings. There was a shortage in the stock found at the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stock calculated as per books of accounts. Thus, it is clear that the less found stock represented suppressed sales. Keeping in view the decision of Pune Bench cited by the learned counsel where stock was found less on physical verification as compared to the stock as per books, the possible addition could be only in respect of gross profit arising out of suppressed sale." 4.5. Considering the fact that during the course of original assessment addition of Rs. 6,61,107/- has already been made on account of gross profit earned on account of shortage of stock. Therefore, no further addition is required to be made by the AO with respect to this shortage of stock. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition on account of unexplaine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s.271(1) (c) of the I.T. Act at Rs. 18,50,000/-. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that since the original addition on the basis of which penalty was initiated has been dealt the penalty also needs to be deleted without appreciating that assessment proceedings are different from penalty proceedings and the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) order deleting the original addition has not been accepted by the Revenue and therefore, it is necessary to file appeal to keep the issue alive. 3. Any other ground that may be raised at the time of hearing." 8. The crux of the grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is against the deletion of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). 9. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer has not mentioned any specific limb u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and the same reads as under: "3. In view of the above, the amount of Rs. 60,77,044/- is held to be unexplained investment of the assessee and is added to the total income u/s.69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) initiated separately." We have also perused the penalty order dated 29.09.2014 wherein the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by mentioning that "..............Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.......". The Assessing Officer has not mentioned any specific limb/charge for which he wishes to levy the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the....