TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are read as under: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming penalty of Rs. 10,95,540/- imposed by the learned AO u/s 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961 after (a) rejecting submission of the appellant that reason for imposition of penalty was not specified neither in assessment order nor in notice issued for imposition of penalty. (b) upholding finding recorded by the learned AO that imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB is mandatory in nature, and (c) rejecting submission of the appellant that penalty u/s 271AAB cannot imposed only on the basis of admission of income by the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee and that found by the AO arose primarily on account of the manner of calculation of value of closing stock, with the AO giving no benefit of discount which the assessee claimed to give to its customers and also on account of a lower GP rate applied by AO for arriving at the closing stock as per Books available with the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act were initiated on the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the addition of Rs. 65,88,088/-. Thereafter, the hearing in the penalty proceedings were initiated and after considering the submissions filed by the assessee, the AO levied penalty on the surrender made by the assessee in his ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Section 271AAB of the Act. 7. Thereafter, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that, in the facts of the present case also, the ld. CIT(A), in his order passed in quantum proceedings dated 12.11.2018 categorically noted at page No.9 thereof, that with respect to excess stock of business and in the assessment order passed by the AO there is no finding that excess stock in quantity was found during search. Copy of the order of Ld. CIT(A), passed in quantum proceedings, was placed before me and the relevant finding at page No.9 of the order pointed out to me. He therefore, contended that the facts in the present case being identical to that in the case of the sister concern of the assessee i.e. Bhuramal Rajmal Surana Manufactures (Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aside. 10. The ld. DR before me, was unable to controvert the facts pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee as above. She was unable to controvert the fact that the penalty was levied on account of surrender made by the assessee, only of the difference in valuation of stock and not on account of any difference in the quantity of stock found during search. She was unable to controvert the fact that the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings in the case of the assessee had categorically given a finding of fact that there was no difference in the quantity of stock found during search on the assessee. She was unable to controvert the fact that in identical facts and circumstances, where no difference in quantity of stock was found during ....