9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 874 - AT - Income TaxPenalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - Estimation of income on bogus purchases - HELD THAT - . It is a settled position of law that penalty cannot be levied when an ad hoc estimation is made. In both the cases an ad hoc estimation was made by the Assessing Officer restricting the profit element in the purchases @12.5%. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court 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 both these appeals on hand the Assessing Officer 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 Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the Assessing Officer - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Determination of non-genuine purchases and estimation of profit element. 3. Applicability of penalties when income is assessed on an estimation basis. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(c): The appeals were filed by the revenue against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] which deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalties were initially imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed its income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalties, reasoning that the disallowance was based on an estimation of gross profit on the purchases. 2. Determination of Non-Genuine Purchases and Estimation of Profit Element: The assessee, a firm engaged in manufacturing engineering goods, had its assessments reopened under section 147 of the Act. The AO determined that certain purchases were non-genuine based on information from the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, which indicated that the assessee received accommodation entries without actual purchases. The AO estimated the profit element from these non-genuine purchases at 12.5% and brought amounts of ?85,734 and ?72,443 to tax for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively. The assessee accepted these estimations and did not appeal further. 3. Applicability of Penalties When Income is Assessed on an Estimation Basis: The tribunal referred to the settled position of law that penalties cannot be levied when an ad hoc estimation is made. The tribunal cited several precedents, including the case of Shri Deepak Gogri v. Income Tax Officer, where it was held that no penalty is leviable when the profit element is determined by way of ad hoc estimation. The tribunal also referenced the case of DCIT v. Manohar Manak, Alloys Pvt. Ltd., where it was concluded that penalties cannot be imposed where additions are made on an estimate basis without concrete evidence of bogus purchases. Further, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh v. CIT held that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are not attracted in cases where the income is assessed on an estimate basis and additions are made accordingly. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. affirmed that the estimated rate of profit applied on the turnover does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Conclusion: In both appeals, the tribunal observed that the AO had only estimated the gross profit on the alleged non-genuine purchases without conclusive proof of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalties and thus dismissed the revenue's appeals. The order was pronounced on 05.03.2021.
|
