9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he extent of 12.5% - HELD THAT:- Addition has been sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) on estimated basis. As decided in KRISHI TYRE RETREADING AND RUBBER INDUSTRIES [ 2014 (2) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. Accordingly, we hold that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable in the present cases - A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n both these years is related to penalty levied on the addition pertaining to the alleged bogus purchases. She submitted that certain purchases made by the assessee were considered to be bogus in nature and accordingly, the AO disallowed 100% of the purchases, treating them as non-genuine . 3. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) restricted the additions to 12.5% of the value of the alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied in both the years may kindly be deleted. 4. The Ld.DR, on the contrary, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has sustained the addition to the extent of 12.5% only for the reason that the purchases accounted by the assessee are bogus in nature. Accordingly he submitted that the penalty levied by the AO in both the years has been rightly confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). 5. We heard the parties and perused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning thereby the addition has been sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) on estimated basis. The Hon ble Rajasthan and Punjab Haryana High Courts have expressed the view that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. Accordingly, following the above said decision, we hold that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable in the present cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
