TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (7) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,20,291 was shown which gave a gross profit rate of 10.1 per cent. He pointed out that the assessee maintained purchase vouchers and cash memos but no stock register was maintained and no quantitative tally was available. He applied the proviso to s. 145 and adopted a profit rate of 12 per cent to which the assessee agreed. He, therefore, added Rs. 44,580 on a corresponding enhanced turnover of Rs.16,64,840. 3. The assessee took up the matter before the AAC contending that defect in sale or purchase was found out by the ITO and merely that the profit being low, accounts cannot be rejected and proviso to s. 145(1) will not be applicable. 4. The AAC found force in the submissions made. The AAC pointed out that the ITO has not quoted any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances, we are of the opinion that the ITO was justified on the facts of the case that proviso to s. 145(1) would be applicable. The stand of the Revenue is that there was no justification for the AAC to reduce the addition to the above extent. Having regard to the nature and line of business of the assessee, findings of the authorities below and the submissions made before us, we are of the opinion that the addition made by the ITO was on the higher side and the reduction by the AAC was on the lower side. We would therefore, restrict the addition to Rs. 10,000. Thus the orders of the authorities below on the point is modified. 7. The next point of appeal is that the AAC erred in holding that interest under s. 139(8)/217 was not charge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....143(3) were not ''regular assessment" within the meaning of s. 273(b) r/w s. 212(3) and, therefore, the penalty was not valid. Thus on the facts of the case and on going through the provisions of the above section as well as the ratio of the above decision, we are of the opinion that the AAC erred in holding that the ITO's action in levying penalty under s. 273 was not justified. The grievance of the Revenue is that the AAC has no such jurisdiction to pass an order while disposing of the appeal preferred by the assessee in the present case in respect of penalty matters initiated under s. 273. It is submitted that there is no prohibition to initiate penalty proceedings although penalty under s. 273(b) may not be sustainable. The AAC did not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken by the ITO under s. 148. In view of the decisions of the Allahabad High Court, as well as Calcutta High Court an assessment made under s. 147(a) r/w s. 143(3) would not be a regular assessment made for the purpose of the above section. Apart from the fact that the ITO has not mentioned about the charging of interest under s. 139(8) / 217 in the assessment order, interest would not be leviable, keeping in mind the decisions noted above. 10. As far as the penalty leviable under s. 273, is concerned, we agree with the contentions raised on behalf of the Revenue that in an appeal against assessment made under s. 143(3), the AAC was not justified in giving a direction to the ITO that penalty should not be charged under s. 273, on the f....