9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed also denotes reference to specific item of amount added or disallowed as deduction in contrast to substitution of altogether a new estimated sum in place of the income returned. It is a case neither of addition or disallowance but a case of substitution.” In view thereof, the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal for deleting the penalty. In the light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we hereby direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty as in the present case also the Assessing Officer has estimated the profit by rejecting the books of account. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 1027/JP/2013 - - - Dated:- 22-12-2016 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct proceedings. In the penalty proceedings, the A.O. has to demonstrate with a specific instance of concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, in case in hand the Assessing Officer has merely estimated the GP rate. Therefore, he submitted that the penalty cannot be sustained where the addition was made on the basis of estimation. In support of this contention, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the decisions of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of Shiv Lala Tak Vs CIT 251 ITR 373 (Raj), Addl. CIT Vs. Agarwal Misthan Bhandar 131 ITR 619 (Raj). He also relied upon the decisions of the Hon ble ITAT Jaipur Benches in the case of Shri Kamlesh Dangayach Vs. ACIT-1, Jaipur in ITA No. 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer unserved. This Bench recently decided this issue in detail in the case of Shri Anuj Kumar Varshney Vs. I.T.O. and other cases in ITA No. 187/JP/2012 order dated 22/10/2014 and gave detail findings on unverifiable purchases in number of cases. The department has been able to prove that in gems and jewellery business, some of the parties were giving accommodation entry and some of them accepting the accommodation bill to reduce the profit. The parties names figured in this case also were similar to those cases, therefore, we hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was specific and assessee had concealed the income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Further the assessee s explanation is not bonafide. The ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
