VISHAL NEERAJ AGRAWAL Vs. THE DCIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) -V, Baroda ['CIT(A)' in short] dated 30/08/2011 for AY 2004 -05, dated 23/08/2011 for AY 2005 -06 and dated 23/08/2011 for AY 2006 -07. Since common ground is involved, all these three appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

(2.) The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal."

(3.) BRIEFLY stated facts are that the case of the assessee was reopened and the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was framed vide order dated 31/12/2008. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO in short) made addition of Rs. 7,000/ - by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act and addition of Rs. 15,698/ - on account of disallowance of expenditure of job work, repairs & maintenance and further made addition of Rs. 49,834/ - out of repairs & maintenance expenses treated as capital expenditure. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Subsequently, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 24,000/ - vide order dated 30/06/2009. Feeling aggrieved by the orders, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee partly allowed the appeal of the assessee; thereby the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalties of Rs. 7,000/ - & Rs. 49,834/ - and deleted the expenditure of Rs. 15,698/ - made in respect of job charges & repairs, etc. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.