9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, which sustaining of levy of penalty of Rs. 6,18,121/- U/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is most arbitrary, unjust and untenable in fact and in law and in the alternative excessive w.r.t. facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or substitute one or more grounds of appeal as and when needed." The assessee has also raised additional ground as under: "In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. has erred in imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c) without specifically pointing out in the show cause notice, whether penalty was proposed on concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of quantum proceedings, the A.O. has estimated extra income of 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. The ld. CIT(A) has estimated 15% of the profit on such purchases, accordingly given partial relief. In quantum appeal, the Tribunal have confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition @ 15%. The A.O. has also imposed penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to estimated quantum addition upheld by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is in further appeal before us with regard to penalty so imposed by the A.O. U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, the quantum and penalty proceedings are separate and if in the penalty proceedings, it is found that the assessee has furnished all the evidences to substantiate its claim of not fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench in the case of Deepak Dalela Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1027/JP/2013 dated 22/12/2016 has held as under: "5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on the record and also gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The Coordinate Bench in the identical case i.e. in the case of ITO Vs. M/s Bhansali Trading Corporation, has held as under:- "6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The addition made by the A.O. was specific on account of unverifiable purchases on which G.P. @ 25% was applied and added in the income. However, the same was reduced by the ld CIT(A) and applied different G.P. rate. However, the additions were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed figure, in the strict sense, can neither be said to be addition of any amount in the returned income nor disallowance of any amount as deductions claimed. The word ''amount'' of which additions made or deductions disallowed 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 pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
