9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85,229/-. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that in this case, the return of income was filed by the assessee on 31-12-1992 showing total income of Rs.15,61,120/- The assessment u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act was finalized on 24-3-1995 determining the total income at Rs.79,79,050/-.On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the additions of Rs.32,500/- and Rs.20,28,769/- made on account of disallowance of consultancy fee of Rs.32,500/- and on account of low G.P. respectively. Being aggrieved, Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 26-10-2004 set aside these two issues regarding the disallowance of consultancy fees and addition on account of low G.P. and restored back these two matters to the file of the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though only part addition was deleted by the Tribunal on account of addition for low G.P. but the penalty is not justified even on such part addition confirmed by the Tribunal because even the part addition is confirmed on estimate basis only and therefore, penalty is not justified. In support of this contention, reliance was placed by him on various Tribunal/High Court decisions, citation of which are given by him on page-26 of the Paper book which is as under:- Sr. No. Citation Name 1. 140 Taxman 524 (Ker.) Hotel Classic 2. 94 TTJ 156 (Jd.) Narendra Kumar 3. 311 ITR 454 (Pune)(TM) Rajan H.Shinde. 4. 106 TTJ 616 (Del) Alied Construction. 5. 111 TTJ 540 (Lucknow 'A') Sahyog Sahkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. 6. 114 TTJ 56 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raud or gross or willful neglect merely because books of account of the assessee had been rejected and Assessing Officer and CIT (A) having applied different net profit rates to estimate assessee's income from the business of the Civil Construction than the profit rate shown by the assessee. On this basis, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer in that case u/s. 271(1) (c) had been deleted. Similarly, in the case of Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., (supra) the facts are that the assessment was based on estimated profits. Estimate was reduced by CIT (A) as no conclusive proof was available. Under these facts, it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that it is not a case of concealment of income and penalty cannot be levied. In the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
