9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Shruti Fastners Ltd. Vs. DCIT [ 2017 (4) TMI 1059 - ITAT DELHI ], and ITAT Mumbai in the case of Rakeshkumar M. Gupta Vs. ITO [ 2017 (2) TMI 1472 - ITAT MUMBAI ], Moreover, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT [ 2000 (10) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ], has held that the penalty is not leviable when the profit has been estimated on estimation basis. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Amarjit Singh, JM And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Ms. Usha Gaikwad (DR) ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The revenue has filed the present appeal against the order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -26, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee made an attempt to reduce the profitability and thereby attempted to avoid taxes, which in itself proves beyond doubt that assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income ? (4) The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT (A) on the above grounds be reversed and that of the Assessing officer be restored. (5) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 11-10-2010 declaring a total income of ₹ 5,39,070. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case, the purchase had been duly shown by the appellant in its books of accounts but it could not produce the partly from whom the purchase had been made. It is not the case of the AO that the impugned purchases have been proved to be bogus conclusively and there were no corresponding sales. In a recent case before the Allahabad High Court in the case of NareshChand Agarwal Vs. CIT 357 ITR 0514 (All), it has been held that 12. In the instant case, nothing was concealed by the assessee. It was the A. 0. who has rejected the books of account in the second round and applied the 8 percent net profit rate prescribed tinder Section 44 AD. In the instant case, the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbai in 'TA No.. 93/Mum/2011 dated10.04.2015 in the case of DM- 14(2) vs. M/s. RishabhImpexGulabdas Co. deleted thepenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on addition made on estimation basis. Further, in a recent decision of Delhi ITAT in the case of Shruti Fastners Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 0183 Del Trib and ITAT Mumbai in the case of Rakeshkumar M. Gupta Vs. IlT0(2017) 49 CCH 0066 Mum Trib, it has been held that where income has been estimated, the appellant cannot be said to have concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not leviable. 6.5 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, as above and those relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
