TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1082 - ITAT PUNE] - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA Nos.165 & 166/PUN/2016 And ITA No.160/PUN/2016 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2018 - Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am For the Appellant : Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT For the Respondent : None ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM : Out of this bunch of three appeals, two appeals filed by Revenue relating to M/s. Mauli Steel Pvt. Ltd. and another appeal relating to M/s. Gajlaxmi Steel Pvt. Ltd. are against separate orders of CIT(A)-I, Aurangabad, all dated 27.11.2015 relating to assessment years 2004-05, 2009-10 2009-10, respectively, against deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. This bunch of appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch further evidence to substantiate its case as the occasion may demand . 4. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, we find that the issue raised in the present appeals is covered by the orders of the Tribunal. We proceed to decide the present appeals after hearing the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. 5. The only issue raised by the Revenue in the present appeals is against deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the present case, the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of MS Ingots/Billets. In the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the additions were made on account of estimated suppr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Tribunal. He observed that penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied where the income was estimated after rejection of books of account. 8. After hearing the Ld. DR for the Revenue and on perusal of the material available on record on this limited issue, we find that in other cases of Steel group similar issue of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was raised. The Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Jalna Circle, Jalna Vs. M/s. Rishi Steel Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and other connected appeals in ITA Nos. 161, 162, 164 167/PUN/2016 relating to the assessment years 2004-05 and 2009-10, order dated 17.11.2017 relying on the orders of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Bhagyalaxmi Steel Alloys Pvt. in ITA Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tricity units are required, etc . , and the decision of Hon ble CE S Tribunal and the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SRJ Peety Steels Pvt . Ltd . ( supra ) etc . Nothing incriminating material has been brought by the Revenue authorities to take a contrary view against the findings of CIT ( A ). We therefore find the order of the CIT ( A ) to be a reasoned one and accordingly affirm the same . Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed . In the case of ACIT Vs . Shree Om Rolling Mills Pvt . Ltd . ( supra ) also the Pune Bench of the Tribunal ( where both of us are parties ) held as under : 11 . We heard both the parties and perused the orders of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sale of such goods and they merely relied on the figures given by the assessee . The quantity of unaccounted production is estimated by the Excise Department and the taxable income is estimated for the income - tax Department by the assessee applying the flat rate of 4 %. Despite the absence of any discussion in the order of the CIT ( A ) on this part of the issue of argument, specially, the CIT ( A ) granted relief presuming that this segment of income is also arrived at by the estimation . In our view, the said presumption is fair and reasonable . In any case, nothing is brought to our notice by the Ld . DR to demonstrate the estimations are not involved both in arriving at the figure of unrecorded sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... timated by the CIT(A). However, the said addition has been deleted by the Tribunal and the other addition made under section 69C of the Act has also been deleted by the Tribunal. In the totality of the above and in view of the ratio laid down by the Tribunal (supra), we uphold the order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 10. The facts and issues in ITA Nos.166/PUN/2016 160/PUN/2016 are identical to the facts and issues in ITA No.165/PUN/2016 and our decision in ITA No.165/PUN/2016 shall apply mutatis mutandis to ITA Nos.166/PUN/2016 160/PUN/2016. 11. In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed. Order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
