9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of builders and developers. It filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 22,54,389/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. However, there was non-compliance from the side of the assessee, for which the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 20.12.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,90,22,532/-, where he made the following additions: a) Rs. 25,49,468/- being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleted by CIT(A) (Rs) Reference Addition confirmed by CIT(A) (Rs) Reference 1 Addition on account of 20% of total expenses 2549468 Para 4 on page no.2 of Assessment Order 2299468 Para 6.3.2 on page no.8 and 9 of CIT(A) Order 250000 Para 6.3.2 on page no.8 and 9 of CIT(A) Order 2 Addition on account of 20% of Unsecured loan 5898675 Para 5 on page no.3 of Assessment Order 5898675 Para 7.3.2 on page no.11 of CIT(A) Order - 3 Addition on account of sale of immovable property not declared in ROI 8320000 Para 6 on page no.3 of Assessment Order 8320000 Para 8.3.4 on page no.15 of CIT(A) Order - Total 1,67,68,143 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions include CIT vs. Ajaib Singh and Co. (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P&H); Naranbhai Veerabhai and Co. vs. CIT (1993) 203 ITR 1017 (Guj) and Addl. CIT vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. (1986) 157 ITR 822 (Del). Since the major amount has already been deleted by the CIT(A) / NFAC and the only addition is an estimated lump sum addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- out of total expenses of Rs. 1,27,47,339/- debited in the Profit and Loss Account, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable in the instant case. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld CIT(A)/NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
