TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent : Sh. Sanjay Issar, CA ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 17/06/2014 passed by CIT(A), XI, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the penalty of ₹ 24,90,696/- imposed by A.O u/s 271(1)(c) on account of disallowance of expenditure of ₹ 73,99,575/-. 3. The return declaring income of ₹ 16,02,820/- was filed by the assessee on 30.09.2008. The assessment was completed u/s 144/147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act at an income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings. The past history of the appellant s case is also kept in mind. It is a fact that the appellant has not produced books of accounts at any stage of proceedings including the present appellate proceedings. Therefore, the claim made by the appellant that duly audited accounts were submitted by it on the basis of regular books of accounts is a hollow claim which cannot be substantiated by producing even the ledger and cash book by the appellant. This could have been an appropriate case where the AO should have invoked the provisions of section 145 of the Act and estimated the profit on the basis of a comparable case. However, to my utter dismay, the AO has proceeded in making a disallowance of expenditure claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The disallowance of expenditure on estimated basis cannot be termed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore imposition of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act in the case is not justified. The AO s action in imposing the penalty of ₹ 24,90,696/- is therefore, not justified and the same is directed to be cancelled. Grounds of appeal are allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. It is held in various decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court and Hon ble High Courts that penalty cannot be levied on addition on account of estimated disallowance. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty which was lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
