9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culars of income. We find support from the series of decisions by different High Courts as well the decision of the Co ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, wherein it was held that when addition is made on estimate basis, penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 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 Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed justified in deleting 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. Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 69C of the Act at ₹ 21,09,700. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer vide impugned order dated 9th March 2018, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied penalty of ₹ 81,485. The assessee being aggrieved by the penalty order so passed by the Assessing Officer filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty so imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by following the decisions of the Co ordinate Bench. The relevant observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the penalty are as follows: 6.4 Decision- 6.4.1 I have considered the submissions of the appellant and perused the materials available on record. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act, where the addition u/s 69C of the Act was made on account of bogus purchases, on the ground that the assessee made a claim which was bonafide and the same was coupled with documentary evidences but the same remained inconclusive for want of confirmation from the suppliers as they could not be traced at given address. Further, the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Ajay Loknath Lohia in ITA No. 2998/Mum!2017, vide its order dated 05.10.2018 has deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the disallowance / addition made @ 25% on alleged bogus purchases made from hawala dealers based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department and where the appellant had accepted such estimated ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on ad hoc basis without adducing any evidence on record for concealment of income. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to be imposed only where the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Action of making addition on ad hoc basis does not result into imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence cannot be termed as either concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find support from the series of decisions by different High Courts as well the decision of the Co ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, wherein it was held that when addition is made on estimate basis, penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
