TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Gwalior dated 21.01.2013 for the assessment year 2005-06, challenging the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income at ₹ 3,80,217/- from contract business. Survey u/s. 133A was conducted on 23.02.2005 on the premises of the assessee. The statutory notices were iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipts of ₹ 2,73,70,360/- and computed total income of the assessee at ₹ 21,89,628/-. The ld. CIT(A), however, vide order dated 21.08.2008 sustained the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- on this issue and allowed the appeal of the assessee partly. The Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 704/2008 and the appeal of the department has been dismissed vide order dated 17.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held as under : 4. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee did not produce the record/details before the AO. The assessee also did not produce books of account and vouchers. Therefore, the AO has to resort to estimate of income. The matter ultimately traveled to the Tribunal and higher profit rate was further reduced and ulti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing addition. All these decisions cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee clearly support the contention of the assessee that penalty is not leviable on estimate of income. Following the same decisions, we do not find it to be a fit case for levy of penalty. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to income of the assessee on the above reasons, would not be sufficient to hold that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or filed inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty is, therefore, not leviable in the matter. By following the decision in the case of Laxmi Narayan Shivhare vs. JCIT (supra), we set aside the orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty. 6. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
