9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % and on further appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue, the addition was enhanced to 6%. The entire addition right from assessment stage to the Tribunal was merely on estimations. There is no definite finding on the quantum of concealment of income. It is an accepted legal position that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on additions made merely on estimations is unsustainable. As in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries [ 2014 (2) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ] has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Thus penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated addition has been held to be unsustainable. - Decided against revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a criminal complaint was filed in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. The ld. AR asserted that as per exception in para10(f), the prosecution filed by the Department should be pending in the Court at the time of filing of the appeal. Therefore, the present M.A. is without merit and liable to be dismissed. 4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have considered the exceptions provided in CBDT communiqué dated 20.08.2018. Taking note of the same, we are of the considered view that though tax effect involved in appeal of the Revenue is less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 (supra) for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, however, the instant appeal falls under exception as specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge its onus in proving genuineness of the purchases and the dealers. Consequently, the AO made estimated addition of 12.5% of bogus purchases and penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the aforesaid addition was also initiated. Thereafter, the AO vide order dated 22.11.2018 levied penalty of Rs. 1,36,130/- on the addition confirmed by the Tribunal. The CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, hence, the present appeal. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting penalty without taking note of the fact that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills and thereby suppressing profits. The ld. DR prayed for reversing the findings of CIT(A) and upholding levy of penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on estimations is unsustainable. 10. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by Ho'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53. The Hon'ble High Court approving the order of Tribunal held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
