9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the AO and modified by the ld. CIT(A). As in the case of Bombaywala Readymade Stores [2014 (11) TMI 1099 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that "whether since no income had been filed by assessee and income was assessed on estimate basis by revenue, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be levied for concealment of income." Thus, we find that no penalty is leviable on the assessee, when the addition on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal which reads as under: "1. The ld. NFAC/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in imposing a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 2,11,310/-." 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of bogus purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2015) 55 taxmann.com 258 (Guj) (v) CIT Vs Hariyana Textile Industries P ltd. Tax Appeal No. 741 of 2009 dated 28/06/2016 (vi) ITA No. 1044/Ahd/2018 I-Serve Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT order dated 02/02/2022 (vii) Anil Abhubhai Odedara Vs ITO (2020) 117 taxmann.com 490 (Rajkot-Trib) 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al turnover. On receipt of order of ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 2,11,310/-. I find that the addition was certainly bases on estimation made by the Assessing Officer and modified by the ld. CIT(A). I find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITO Vs Bombaywala Readymade Stores (supra) held that "whether since no income had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
