2006 (7) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ibunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal has set aside the penalty levied on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). We have heard counsel for the patties and have perused the order passed by the Tribunal. While accepting the plea of the assessee for setting aside the penalty for the years in question, the Tribunal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the assessee in some other years to establish the case of penalty in the years of account. Reverting to the question whether onus under Explanation (1) has been discharged in these cases, we find that the Revenue has justified this action by presuming that the assessee must have charged commission at 1 1/2 per cent. On the basis of the above presumption, we cannot hold that the assessee in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not improbable. Similar principles have been applied by courts where estimates were taken on purely estimate basis and penalty imposed. See the case of Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P H) where income was taken at Rs. 1,50,000 against Rs. 52,000 disclosed by the assessee. Even then their Lordships held that no penalty under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) could be imposed. The pen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X