TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee – it came up because the Department already detected one undisclosed bank account which contained transfer entries of the remaining five undisclosed bank accounts – there was no reason to interfere with the orders – Decided against Assessee. - ITA Nos. 1272 & 1273/Ahd/2011 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2014 - Shri Mukul Kr. Shrawat And Shri N. S. Saini,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri J. P. Jhangid, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri S. N. Divetia, AR ORDER Per Shri N. S. Saini, Accountant Member: This are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX, Ahmedabad dated 04.02.20111. 2. The sole ground taken in both the appeals by the assessee is that the ld. Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that as the addition was made of the peak amount of the respective assessment years, the addition was on estimate basis and therefore penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. He, in support of the above contention, relied upon the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Murarilal Ratanlal Agarwal Vs. ACIT in IT(SS)A No. 573 615/Ahd/2012 Assessment Year 2004-05 order dated 05.07.2013 and in the case of Shri Ojas Ashokbhai Mehta Vs. ITO in ITA No. 296 297/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year 2008-09 order dated 23.08.2013. 9. In the alternative, the Authorized Representative of the assessee also contended that only one undisclosed bank account was found by the investigation wing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o quote the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Becharbhai P. Parmar (2012) 341 ITR 0499 (Guj.) wherein the Hon ble High Court has held as under: Penalty corresponding to the addition of ₹ 17.22 lakhs was deleted on the ground that the assessee had demonstrated that there was estimation of additions and that, therefore, no penalty could be levied. Here again, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal interfered with the penalty on the ground which was not permissible. Additions made on the basis of estimation may be one of the grounds on which discretion not to impose penalty may be exercised. However, in the absence of any requirement to prove the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
