9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by assessee is against order of CIT(A), Ghaziabad, dated 24.05.2018 relating to assessment year 2012-13 against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. The only issue raised in the present appeal is against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The Ld.AR for the assessee at the outset, pointed out that while initiating the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Del/2015 vide order dated 27.12.2018. 3. The Ld.DR for the Revenue on the other hand strongly placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below and also pointed out that the penalty proceedings have been initiated in the case and there is merit in the aforesaid levy of penalty. It was also pointed out that on merits, the books of accounts of the assessee had been rejected and net profit has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income. The Tribunal in ITA No.4830/Del/2016 in the case of P.K. Builders vs DCIT vide order dated 13.02.2019 directed the application of net profit rate @ 6% on the contract receipts. 5. The AO while completing the assessment had directed to issue notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The perusal of the assessment order reflects the AO not to have recorded any satisfaction for initiatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements of the section. Merely, an order issuing notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act do not meet the conditions of the said initiation of penalty proceedings. In the absence of the same, there is no merit in the penalty order passed in the case. In this regard, we find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty for concealment. Where there is only an estimation of income in the hands of the assessee, there is no merit in the aforesaid levy of penalty for concealment. We find support from the ratio laid down in CIT vs Aero Traders P.Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 316 (Delhi). Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
