9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were reduced by the ITAT to extent of 15% which is purely on estimated basis and balance amount to the tune of 85% has been treated as genuine. Thus it can be inferred that there was no deliberate act on the part of the assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars of income. In our considered view there cannot be any penalty in the hands of the assessee. For this preposition we draw strength from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra A Shah [ 2016 (8) TMI 1389 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] We also draw support and guidance from the order of this Tribunal in the case of Maradia Copper Extrusion(P) Ltd [ 2017 (4) TMI 249 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] - We are of the view that the assessee cannot be visited with the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for ₹ 15,79,620/- on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and declared his income under the head salary, capital gain and other sources. The assessee in his return of income has declared income of ₹ 20,07,255/- under the head short term capital gain. The Assessee has worked out the impugned amount of short term in capital gain after claiming the expenses incurred on the purchase of sand, bricks and matipuran expenses aggregating to ₹ 51,12,040/- 4.1. However, the AO during the assessment proceedings found that these expenses claimed by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 10/08/2016. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: 6.1 So far as the issue involved in appeals No. 833 to 836 of 2005 is concerned, in view of the decisions cited hereinabove by learned advocate for the appellant we are of the opinion that the penalty has been wrongly imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries (supra), it has been held that as the addition had been sustained purely on estimate basis and no positive fact or finding had been had been found so as to even make the addition which was a pure guess work, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be said to be leviable on such guess work or estimation. We therefore answer the issue in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has considered both these aspects in the impugned order and deleted the penalty. After going through the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), we do not see any reason to interfere in it. According!), the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. On the other hand the Ld. DR contended that the authorities below have not made any disallowance on estimated basis. As such all the expenses were disallowed by the authorities below treating them as bogus in nature. Thus Ld. DR was of the view that the penalty has not been levied merely on the addition which were made on estimated basis. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
