- (1.) AFFIDAVIT of service has been filed.
(2.) DEFECT has been removed. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant -Department. No one has appeared from the respondent's side.
(3.) THE IT Department is challenging the order of Tribunal dt. 9th Oct., 1998. The brief facts are that the assessee was a country liquor contractor/vendor. In the assessment proceedings, the account books of the assessee were rejected on the ground that the sales alleged by the assessee were not verified. Thereafter, following Section 145 of the IT Act, sales were estimated by the AO at 2 -1/2 times of the licence fee and the net profit rate of 5 per cent was applied and, thereby, assessed the total income at. Rs. 2,03,200 as against the declared income of Rs. 1,20,740. Penalty of Rs. 60,000 was imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of IT Act for concealment of income in respect of the relevant assessment year, i.e., 1984 -85. The penalty was set aside by the CIT(A). The relevant part of the decision of the said appellate authority is reproduced as below: He doubted the sales but did not bring on record any material to suggest that the assessee had more sales than what was disclosed in its books of account. In other words, no material has been brought on record to prove actual suppression of sales by the assessee. Merely because the proviso to Section 145(1) has been applied and the sales have been estimated it cannot be said with certainty that the sales disclosed by the assessee as per its books of account were false. At best it could be said that the sales as declared by the assessee could not be substantiated by the assessee by evidence.;