9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELD THAT:- In this case, the AO has levied the penalty by taking into consideration only five months of the lodging receipts and estimating for the remaining seven months and the addition is made. In our opinion, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on the basis of estimation. AO has failed to prove that the Assessee had either concealed the income or filed inaccurate particulars. Therefore, Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 2011 on 29.07.2010 admitting a total income of Rs. 2,53,090/-. Subsequently, the case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and passed the Assessment Order on 28.02.2013 by determining a taxable income of Rs. 14,05,485/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had initiated a penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, the difference in lodging receipts of Rs. 8,45,452 (Rs. 35,96,831/- minus Rs. 27,51,380/-) was treated as suppression in lodging receipts and the same was treated as concealment of income and hence penalty was levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 6. The le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vied on the basis of estimation. The Assessing Officer has failed to prove that the Assessee had either concealed the income or filed inaccurate particulars. Therefore, Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has no application in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and we cancel the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 11. In the result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
