9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.7155/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 27-8-2014 - H L Karwa B R Baskaran, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms Vinita Shah For the Respondent : Shri P K Singh ORDER Per: B R Baskaran: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) -8, Mumbai dated 02-11-2012 relating to A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of ₹ 4,66,885/- levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act). 3. The facts that led to levy of penalty are discussed hereunder. The Department carried out a survey operation u/s 133A of the Act on 22-3-2007. During the course of survey op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submitted that the assessee s sister concern namely M/s P. Kishanchand Textiles Ltd. was also subjected to survey operation and identical additions in respect of gross profit and selling and administrative expenses were made. The A.O. also levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee carried the matter in appeal against the penalty order before the Tribunal in ITA No.7156/Mum/2012. The Tribunal by following the decisions rendered by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aero Traders P. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 316 (Del.), deleted the penalty so imposed by the A.O. Accordingly, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for deletion of penalty in the present case also. 6. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to maintain a stock register there was gross or willful neglect on his part . In the present case also the non-maintenance of stock register, when all information were disclosed by the assessee relating to its sales and purchases, it cannot be held that there was gross or willful neglect on the part of the assessee. 10. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aero Traders (P) Ltd. (supra) held as under (Head Note) : Penalty under s. 271(1)(c) Concealment Addition of estimated profit AO rejected the book results declared by the assessee and estimated the income at ₹ 61,00,000 as against returned loss of ₹ 83,64,468 CIT(A) deleted the levy of penalty under s.271(1)(c) on the ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee of ₹ 36,41,003, on the ground that it was a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty holding that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of estimated profit could not be a subject-matter of penalty for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. Held, dismissing the appeal, that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal did not warrant interference as it was purely a finding of fact. 12. In the present case also the income of the assessee was determined by applying the gross profit rate and by making the disallowance out of the expenses on estimate basis. The learned CIT(A) also sustained the addition on estimate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
