9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) in all the three years under consideration and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c). Decided in favour of assessee. - SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Himanshu Gandhi For the Respondent : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : All the three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi (in short Ld. CIT(A) and they relate to Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) in all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bench has followed the decisions rendered in the following cases:- a) CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580 (Raj); b) CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., 303 ITR 53 (P H); and, c) CIT vs Subhash Trading Co. Ltd., 221 ITR 110 (Guj) 4. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that penalty levied in these years on estimated addition may kindly be deleted. 5. The Ld. DR, on the contrary, supported the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We noticed earlier that the Assessing Officer has estimated profit on alleged bogus purchases @ 12.5%, which was reduced to 6% by Ld. CIT(A). Admittedly, addition has been made on estimated basis in all the three years under consideration. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by Hon 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 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
