9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter referred to as "the Act" for short). 2. Grounds raised by the assessee as follows: (I) Penalty on addition of Rs. 4,79,000/-: During the assessment proceedings, assessee had agreed Rs. 4,79,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs Seventy Nine Thousands only) as his income from Malhar Dairy, which is not shown in total income as Assessee has strong belief that income from Dairy Farming is exempt from Income Tax and so it is not disclosed while filing Income tax return. It is held in C.I.T & Anr. v/s. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 that no penalty on income bonafidely disclosed during scrutiny proceedings be levied. There is no concealment of income by the assessee and thus penalty on the amount of Rs. 4,79,000/- requires ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. Aggrieved by the above assessment, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against quantum appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee vide his order dated 11.6.2015 wherein Rs. 4,79,000/- on account of undisclosed income from Malhar Dairy Farm was upheld and Rs. 10,88,357/- on account of bogus purchase were being upheld. 4. It is thereafter, the Ld.AO vide order dated 31.3.2017 levied penalty of Rs. 4,84,310/- on the ground that the assessee has concealed particulars of income to evade tax of such income. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... timation of income, the ld.AO has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are against the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Subhas Trading Co., 22 ITR 110 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Valmikbhai H. Patel, 280 ITR 487 (Guj). The assessee further pleaded that this addition was made on estimate basis does not prove either inaccurate particulars is furnished or income is concealed by the assessee. Therefore, levy of penalty is liable to be deleted. 7. In reply, the Ld.DR has strongly relied upon the orders passed by the CIT(A) and that of the AO. He submitted that the assessee's ignorance cannot be a good ground of excuse for non-payment of taxes and the same would amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been made on estimation basis, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be made qua such addition. Relevant observation of this judgment the jurisdictional High Court reads as follows: ".......Therefore, loss on account of cyclone and rain would be on an estimated basis. In fact this is what the Commissioner (Appeals) has found as a matter of fact that one estimate was substituted by another estimate. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), in the circumstances, the assessee could not be visited with penalty merely because the assessee was not in a position to substantiate the claim in quantity. In the light of the aforesaid factual position it is not possible to interfere with the final conclusion of the Tribunal. Both the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
