9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1223 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Bogus purchases - estimation of Gross Profit was made by the Assessing Officer restricting the profit element in the alleged bogus purchases at 12.11% - HELD THAT - Similar view has been taken in the case of CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (1) TMI 32 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein the Hon'ble High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal in holding that estimated rate of profit applied on the turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the case on hand the AO has only estimated the Gross Profit on the alleged non-genuine purchases without there being any conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Thus, we do not observe any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty imposed for purchases made from hawala parties. 2. Estimation of profit element from non-genuine purchases. 3. Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied on estimated additions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of penalty imposed for purchases made from hawala parties: The Revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A), which deleted the penalty of ?1,01,310/- imposed on the assessee for purchases made from hawala parties. The Assessing Officer (AO) had levied this penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, asserting that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed its income. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, leading to the Revenue's appeal. 2. Estimation of profit element from non-genuine purchases: The AO, based on information from the DGIT(Investigation), Mumbai, found that the assessee obtained accommodation entries from M/s. Nutan Metals without actual purchases. The AO treated these purchases as non-genuine and estimated the profit element at 12.11% of the turnover for the assessment year 2010-11. This estimation was accepted by the assessee, and no further appeal was made against it. 3. Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied on estimated additions: The Tribunal examined whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be levied when the income addition was based on estimation. It was noted that the AO made an adhoc estimation of the Gross Profit on the alleged non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal referenced several precedents to support the view that penalty cannot be levied on estimated additions: - In the case of Shri Deepak Gogri v. Income Tax Officer, the Tribunal held that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estimation. - In the case of DCIT v. Manohar Manak, Alloys Pvt. Ltd, it was held that penalty cannot be imposed where additions are made on an estimate basis. - The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh v. CIT held that additions made on an estimate basis do not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as there must be a positive act of concealment. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's estimation of Gross Profit on non-genuine purchases lacked conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the AO was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when income additions are made on an estimated basis without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
|
