9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome of ₹ 1,32,36,474/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. examined the sales of the assessee and it was noticed that the assessee's sales were not verifiable as he could not produce the same bills. Even quantity sold could not be verified because the stock register was not produced by the assessee. Accordingly, the A.O estimated the sales at ₹ 30 crores as against disclosed sales of ₹ 29,31,23,140/- and made an addition of ₹ 68,76,860/- on account of suppression of sales. Further the A.O has also disallowed an amount of Rs..20,000/- on account of various expenses as per para 7 of assessment order. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated. 2.1. Subsequently, Ld. CIT(A) vide order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng effect to the Order of ITAT. Accordingly, an addition of ₹ 9,38,907/- is confirmed by the ITAT. 2.3. Opportunity was given to the assessee to explain the above position for levy of penalty. The assessee submitted that addition was made on mere estimate without any material. Therefore, such additions cannot be basis to treat the assessee having concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee and levied the penalty for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 ultimately addition was made to the extent of ₹ 9,38,907/-. The assessee has disclosed all the particulars of income in the return of income. Merely because supporting evidences could not be produced, higher income was estimated. Hon ble Chattisgarh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Kumar Jain (supra) held that non-production of books of account and estimate of higher net profit did not find it justified to levy the penalty. The other decisions cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee clearly support the case of the assessee that on mere estimate of income, penalty is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
