9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold that addition has been made on estimation basis. In the case of Reliance Petro [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] held that merely because claim of assessee was not accepted or was not found to be acceptable by the Revenue authorities, does not automatically allow to impose penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case, it is not an allegation of A.O that the assessee made a bogus or malafide claim. However, in absence of verification the authorities below raised a doubt regarding claim of assessee on certain expenses and finally the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition by estimating the profit @ 10% of turnover which is on the estimation basis. In this situation, allegation of either concealment of particulars of income or allegations of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income cannot be made against the assessee for imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) We reach of a logical conclusion that the A.O imposed penalty without any valid reason on the basis of addition based on estimation basis and the same was upheld by the ld. CIT(A) without any reasonable and acceptable cause. Hence, penalty order as well as first appellate order is not sustainable and we direct the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s confirmed in the quantum/assessment proceedings was purely on estimation and presumption of net profit earning ratio in due consideration of the cogent and authentic evidences and books of accounts furnished an therefore, the action of the lower authorities in confirming the penalty for the alleged concealment of income solely on reproduction of the assessment order and mush less, without bringing any tangible material during the penalty proceedings to prove any act of concealment of income by the appellant, is without jurisdiction, bad in law, perverse, illegal and liable to the quashed. ITA No.1496/Ahd/2013/SRT: 4. We have heard the arguments of both sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on the record of the Tribunal. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs.34,53,232/- from Rs. 1,24,01,628/- made by the Assessing Officer(AO) for various disallowances and additions u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) disregarding the finding of the A.O in assessment proceedings and ignoring the fact that the addition made by the A.O are as per the provisions of the Act, in addition t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterfere with the same as the ld. CIT(A) has not only taken on account GP and NP rate of assessee during immediately previous years, but also considered the percentage of GP and NP after making additions/disallowance made by the A.O. In this situation, we decline to accept allegation of the A.O that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in granting relief to the assessee and thus, we uphold the first appellate order. Accordingly, Ground No.1 2 of Revenue are dismissed. ITA No.3059/Ahd/2015/SRT: 8. We have heard the arguments of both sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on the record of the Tribunal. The ld. Assessee s Representative (AR) submitted that the learned CIT (Appeals)-1, Surat has erred in law as well as on the facts while confirming the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act passed by the ACIT, Circle 5, Surat levying penalty to the extent of Rs. 8,46,267/- for the alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. AR further submitted that both the lower authorities erred in overlooking and in summarily rejecting the detailed statement of facts submitted along with memorandum of appeal, explanations duly substantiated by various documents and evidences place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be held as sustainable. 12. Replying to the above, the ld. CIT-DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee claimed expenses which were not verifiable. Therefore, estimation of income was done by the ld. CIT(A). In this situation, assessee is liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. On careful consideration of above rival submissions, we are of the view that undisputedly A.O made additions by disallowing various expenses and the ld. CIT(A) after considering entire facts and circumstances restricted the addition to 10% of turnover and it was done by estimation of income by following basis of preceding year profit percentage. In this situation, we have no hesitation to hold that addition has been made on estimation basis. In the case of Reliance Petro (supra) of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because claim of assessee was not accepted or was not found to be acceptable by the Revenue authorities, does not automatically allow to impose penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case, it is not an allegation of A.O that the assessee made a bogus or malafide claim. However, in absence of verification the authorities belo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
