9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 law - Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. - ITA No. 6121/MUM/2019 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2021 - Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) And Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) For the Assessee : Mr. Devendra Jain, AR For the Revenue : Mr. Vijay Kumar Menon, DR ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] for the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The assessee has also made the same submissions. In view of the same, the observations given in the context of the issues under consideration in the appellate order for A-Y. 2010-11 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the present appeal also. It is noted that there is a difference in facts in this year. The AO had initialed penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as mentioned in the assessment order dated 23.3.2014. However, the penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income. This is an incurable defect. In the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Colton Ginning Factory [20I3] 35 taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka) it has been clearly held as under:- 60. Clause (c) deals with two specific offences, that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was levied on another limb of the section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Under these circumstances the High Court had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It was cited that the Supreme Court in Ashok Pai vs. CIT 292 ITR 11 had categorically observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the AO with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. This order of Samson Perinchery (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present assesses. 4. Aggrieved with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en addition is made on estimate basis, penalty is 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). 7. After considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and while considering the series of judgments as mentioned above, we are of the view that there is no active concealment of income on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
