9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT] provisions of Sec. 271(1)(c) are not attracted to cases where the income of an assessee is assessed on estimate basis and additions are made therein, thus in the present case also no penalty will be levied - in favour of assessee. - ITA No 807/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2012 - SHRI D.K. TYAGI SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI JJ. Appellant by: Mr. P. D. Shah Respondent by: Mr. T. Shankar, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT (A)-I, Surat dated 24-11-2009 for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. The sole ground raised by the assessee reads as under:- The Ld. CIT (A)-I, Surat erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itative details submitted by the assessee held that the entire purchases made by the assessee was sold during the year which supports the assessee s contention that the finished goods purchased by the assessee may be from, some other parties than the parties from whom the purchases were shown to have been made. The Hon ble Tribunal relying on the decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sanket Steel Traders vs. ITO (ITA No.2801/Ahd/2008 dated 20-5-2011) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases. The Ld. A.R. therefore submitted that since in the present case the addition has been sustained on estimated basis, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can be levied. For this proposition he relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Sagrur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material on record. In the present case we find that the A.O. had treated the expenditure on purchase of goods to be unexplained and added it to the income. In the quantum appeal, the Hon ble ITAT on the basis of quantitative details of stock submitted by the assessee held that the contention of the assessee that the goods were in fact purchased cannot be discarded but might have been purchased from some other party than from those shown in the books. In view of these facts, the Hon ble Tribunal restricted the addition to 15% of the purchases. Thus the addition has been made on the basis of estimate. In the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. (supra) it has been held that the provisions of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
