9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is made on estimate basis, penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Even the learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed justified in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty, as there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee have been proved by the Revenue and additions made on estimation by the Assessing Officer do not call for initiation of penalty. Consequently, we uphold the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. - ITA no.6274/Mum./2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at a flat rate of 6%. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal wherein the disallowance was restricted to ₹ 14,13,080 i.e., @ 6% of the total transaction amount of ₹ 2,35,51,374. As a result of the disallowance so restricted by the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and after considering the submissions of the assessee held that the reply of the assessee is not tenable based on the findings mentioned in the assessment order. He held that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has restricted the addition to the flat rate of 6% and the Tribunal upheld the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness and concluded the reassessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 on 13.02.2015 by adding ₹ 29,43,922/- (@ 12.5% of the amount of hawala transaction). Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Subsequently, CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance to 6% of the bogus transaction amount. On further appeal, Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai upheld the disallowance made by CIT(A). Consequently, after analysis of the submissions filed by the assessee during penalty proceedings and materials available on record, the AO. levied penalty of ₹ 4,36,642/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 27.03.2018 after receipt of nece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis. The similar view has been taken by: A) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd SLP No 31541 of 2008 dated 19.12.2008 B) Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh Vs CIT (2002) 2581TR 85 C) Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in CIT Vs Subhash Trading Co 221 ITR 110 ITAT, Mumbai in Chempure Vs ITa ITA No 451,452 453/Mum/2006 D) ITAT, Mumbai in Sonali A. Shah Vs ITO, ITA No 5720/M/2013 6.4 Further, the Hon'ble IT AT, Mumbai in the case of Earthmoving Equipment Services Corporation Vs DC IT ITA No 6617 dated 02.05.2017 has deleted penalty levied by the Aa for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of bogus purchases. Keeping in view the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of this contention, following case laws are relied upon:- i) CIT v/s Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 280 (Allahabad HC); ii) ACIT v/s Vision Research Management (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 6. Even the learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
