9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of penalty. There are umpteen number of decisions in which it has been held that no concealment penalty can be imposed for disallowance of expenses on estimate basis. Such decisions include CIT vs. Ajaib Singh and Co. [ 2001 (8) TMI 79 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] , Naranbhai Veerabhai and Co. [ 1992 (10) TMI 46 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Addl. CIT vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. [ 1984 (1) TMI 10 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Since the major amount has already been deleted by the CIT(A) / NFAC and the only addition is an estimated lump sum addition 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - being disallowance of 20% of unsecured loans of Rs. 2,94,93,272/- c) Rs. 83,20,000/- being addition on account of sale of immovable property 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) vide order dated 27.03.2019 deleted the addition of Rs. 58,98,675/- and Rs. 83,20,000/-, respectively as per item Nos.2 and 3 above. So far as the disallowance of 20% of the expenses is concerned, the CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- on lump sum and deleted the balance amount of Rs. 22,99,468/-. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer had issued the penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 57,69,152/-. 5. In appeal, the CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) / NFAC. 10. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act made disallowance of Rs. 1,67,68,143/- out of which the CIT(A) / NFAC deleted an amount of Rs. 1,65,18,143/- and sustained an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- only out of the adhoc disallowance of expenses @ 20%, details of which are given at para 7 of this order. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) has held that mere makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
