9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supporting bills or vouchers despite being given sufficient opportunity to do so and therefore, agreed to assessment of NP @5%. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act which also provide that where a person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bonafide, the amount added in computing the total income of such person shall be deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the explanation of the assessee at face value that his accountant had misplaced the bills and vouchers which led to their non production before the Assessing Officer. 4. The Ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief facts of the case are that in this case assessment was completed on 30.12.2010, assessing the income at Rs. 80,55,870/- as against the declared income of Rs. 32,00,692/- in the return of income by taking the net profit @ 5% of the gross turnover, after the assessee had failed to produce the books of accounts and other supporting vouchers, bills etc. even after being afforded numerous opportunities. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were also initiated and penalty of Rs. 16,60,000/- was imposed upon the assessee vide order dated 22.6.2011. 5. Against the penalty order of the Assessing Officer, Asseessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned order 09.7.2012 has allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that there are judicial pronouncements that mere fact that certain addition / disallowance does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there was concealment of income. In support of his contention he referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), he stated that penalty based merely on the finding given in assessment order is not valid. Ld. CIT(A) has cited various decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Courts in support of his contention and accordingly find that no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was leviable on merit against the assessee and therefore, deleted the penalty of Rs. 16,60,000/- and allowed the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on assessment order penalty cannot be levied.
9. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we find that the levy of penalty in this case is not justified particularly when the assessment was framed on the income determined on estimate basis and without bringing any material on record to substantiate that the assessee willfully and intentionally concealed the income or furnished the inaccurate particulars of the income, hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, we uphold the same and decide the issue against the Revenue.
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31/12/2014. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
