2018 (9) TMI 2061

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....firm engaged in advertisement contract. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 26/03/2013. The assessee's total contract receipt for the year shown in the P&L account was at Rs. 1,01,45,542/-. On verification of the ITS detail and Form 26AS, it was found that the assessee was in receipt of Rs. 2,26,39,040/-. There was an omission of income to the tune of Rs. 1,40,49,048/-. When this was brought to the notice of the assessee, the partners of the firm admitted that they had already received the aforesaid amount. The assessee failed to furnish the explanation for the omission of Rs. 1,40,49,048/- in their total turnover despite repeated requests. Moreover, the assessee did not furnish one bank account statement relating to the business wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee with any other assessee engaged in the similar line of business. Further, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer had levied penalty at the rate of 200% without giving any reasons whatsoever. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had been adequately taxed at the rate of 12% of the gross turnover which is much higher than the income actually earned by the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Against this, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee had not offered the correct contract receipts for the year. The Ld. DR submitted that as per ITS details and Form 26AS, it was fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at "so far as the Department appeal is concerned, we may not think, there is no need to interfere with the Tribunal order, because, Tribunal has taken a lenient view in respect of estimated income, which is not positive income concealed, but suppression noticed by the Department". It was submitted that in the assessee's case, except that there was no raid, all other facts are similar. It was submitted that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found mismatch in the gross receipts returned and as found in Form 26AS and the income was estimated as 12% as against returned 31/2% which was accepted by the assessee. It was submitted that the Kerala High court opined that in the case of estimate income, there is no positive income....