2025 (8) TMI 1259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....N. Singh, Sunil Bhawan, Punai Chak, Patna (status of "firm"). 1.1 The facts in brief are that apparently the assessee firm was an accused in some Bitumen Scam. In assessment proceedings, an addition of Rs. 2,22,20,400/- was made and penalty was also levied on this amount. 1.2 Before the Ld. CIT(A), this penalty was deleted but, as has been pointed out by the Ld. AR, the impugned order is passed in the name of Dudheshwar Nath Singh, Sunil Bhawan, Punai Chak, Patna - 800023 (status of "individual"). 2. Aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the department is in appeal before ITAT through the following grounds of appeal: "1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee had never raised such issue before the A.O. that on account of defect in notice he was put to prejudice. 4. That the applicant craves leave to add, alter, delete, modify the grounds of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT." 3. The Ld. DR read from the order of Ld. AO and assailed the order of Ld. CIT(A). 3.1 Per contra, the Ld. AR pointed out that not only is there a mismatch between the status of the assessee in the orders of authorities below, but also that the main addition leading to the impugned penalty has been decided in favour of the assessee by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in assessee's ow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld, yes - Whether having mere posession without legal ownership or title over goods would not be covered within ambit of section 69A and thus, assessee who was mere carrier supplying goods from consignor i.e. oil marketing companies to consignee i.e. road construction department could not be said to be owner for purpose of section 69A - Held, yes - Whether an article under section 69A was to be considered valuable if said article was a high priced article commanding a premium price, thus, common placed article like bitumen could not be said to be valuable article only on basis of its huge mass - Held, yes - Whether thus, section 69A would not be applicable in instant case and impugned addition was to be deleted - Held, yes [Paras A.39, A.79....