TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 271(1)(c) of the Act could be said to be leviable on such guess work or estimation. Thus penalty has been wrongly imposed under Section 271(1) (c). - Decided in favour of assessee. - TAX APPEAL NO. 1663 of 2007 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1672 of 2007 TO TAX APPEAL NO. 1673 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 23-12-2014 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. K.J.THAKER, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR SN DIVATIA, ADVOCATE JUDGEMENT Per: K S Jhaveri: 1. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench C in ITA No. 425/Ahd/2001, in ITA No. 429/Ahd/2001 and ITA No. 427/Ahd/2001. 2. While admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court on 5.11.2014. This court has observed in para 4.1, 6 and 6.1, as under: 4.1 Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the respondent in respect of alleged unaccounted gross profit earned out of alleged unaccounted sale of silver ornaments. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on a decision reported in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Krishi Tyre retreading and Rubber Industries reported in [2014] 360 ITR 580 and Naresh Chand Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in [2013] 357 ITR 514. 6. Heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. In the instant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut since that has not been the basis of assessment as finally made,it would not be proper to hold the assessee as guilty of concealment of income and was of claiming bogus expenditure,which has not been the basis of the assessment. It is a bare simple case of estimate of income of the assessee at 30% and has been so understood by the Revenue Authorities, viz. When the CIT(A) states it is futile to deal individually whether payments made to Mr. Pathan are genuine or what should be overhead expenses and secret commission. The levy of penalty, in these circumstances, in our opinion, is not justified, they are accordingly deleted. 6. In that view of the matter, the question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
