9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi For the Department : Shri B.K. Bagchi ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [hereinafter for short Ld. CIT(A)] dated 09.09.2020 for the A.Y. 2010-11 in partly deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act made by the Assessing Officer. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that, assessee an individual, proprietor of M/s. Siddharth Trading Company engaged in the business of distributor and dealer in Engineering goods, filed return of income on 03.08.2011 declaring income of ₹.73,30,653/- for the A.Y.2010-11. The case was selected for scrut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-11, stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to the order of ITAT in assessee s own case in ITA.No. 6487 6488/Mum/2016 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 dated 18.01.2019 and levy the penalty on the resulting suppressed income. Against this order of the Ld.CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the penalty cannot be imposed when the estimation is made on adhoc basis and requested to delete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estimation. Coming to the interest, the assessee furnished complete details in the return of income and made a claim and simply because the claim is denied and cannot lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. No allegation by Assessing Officer that the assessee failed to disclose the particulars relating to its claim in the return of income. Thus we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Further, the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year in question was, in fact, more than the income returned by him and that estimated additions in the returned income do not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c)of the Act. The Revenue went up in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was allowed by order dated May 30, 2001. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed which raises the aforesaid question of law. 4. In order to attract Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or if he furnishes inaccurate particulars of such income. What is to be seen is whether the assessee in the present case had concealed his income as held by the Assessing Officer an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly erred in law in relying on Explanation 1(B) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to raise a presumption against the assessee. The assessee had justified his estimate of income on the basis of household expenditure and other investments made during the relevant period. It is not the case of the Revenue that he had, in fact, incurred expenditure in excess of what he had stated. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the explanation furnished by the assessee had not been substantiated or that he had failed to prove that such explanation was not bona fide. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the question posed in the earlier part of the order is answered in the negative holding that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
