2022 (9) TMI 1310

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. I am not agreeing with the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. Also I have enclosed a copy of Assessment Order for A.Y. 2010-11 U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act whereby the addition of Income was made on the same grounds for lack of providing supporting evidence for the expenses booked. In the said Assessment Order no Penalty U/s. 271(l)(c) has been imposed. 3. Also in citation of Asst Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dhariwal Industries Ltd, (ITAT Pune) income Tax Appeal no 582/PN/2009, Date of Pronouncement 12.06.2015 it was observed that since No penalty was levied by the A.O, on similar disallowance in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the AO by observing as under: "5. The penalty order u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act of the appellant as well as submission dated 16/05/2018 of the AR of the appellant have been considered. The grounds of appeal of the appellant are reproduced in initial paragraph of this appeal order. With regard to these grounds of appeal, the submission dated 16/05/2018 of the AR of the appellant is not found to be acceptable. The fact involved in the case of appellant is that he had shown the gross profit ratio of 15.64% and net profit ratio of 4% for the year under consideration. However, the appellant could not justify this gross profit of 15.64% and net profit of 4% and during the course of assessment proceedings he admitted before the AO that he h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rials available on record. From the preceding discussion we find that assessee in the present case has filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,68,550/- but the AO was not satisfied with the amount of income declared by the assessee and therefore he estimated the gross total income of the assessee at the rate of 8% of the total turnover. Thus the AO framed the assessment at Rs.10,36,850/- after allowing the deduction available to the assessee under Chapter VI-A of the Act. As such, the addition has been made by the AO to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 30.01.2015. Such addition made by the AO was not challenged before the Ld. CIT-A and thus the addition made by the AO reaches to the finality. However, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1. CIT v. Raj Bans Singh [2005] 276 ITR 351 (All.) 2. CWT v. Sanghi Brothers (India) Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 129 (M.P).; 3. CIT v. Adamkhan [1997] 223 ITR 264/95 Taxman 215 (Mad.); and 4. Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85/125 Taxman 242 (Punj. & Har.) In view of above, by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. No substantial question of law is emerging from the impugned order." 10. Similarly, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Modi Industrial Corpn. [2010] 195 Taxman 68 has also held that....