TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the additions sustained in the appeal. In the assessment, the addition can be on the basis of presumption for making estimated addition. AO estimated the addition on account of commission income, on the basis of entire transaction during the year. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty @ 300% without specifying special reason for levying maximum penalty. CIT(A) restricted the penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. In Gurunanak Oil Agency [ 2013 (3) TMI 718 - ITAT JODHPUR] held that when the addition are based on estimated basis, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed. Also in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills [ 2000 (9) TMI 10 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] held that addition made on estimation basis wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... io for the reason that the notice u/s.274 dated 29/1212016 was issued in mechanical manner without specifying the reason for initiation of penalty. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of ₹ 166319/- being 100 percent of the tax sought to be evaded without considering the facts of the case. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds till the disposal of the appeal. 2. The assessee has raised further additional grounds of appeal: The appellant prefers an appeal against an order 11/05/2018 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appea1)48, Mumbai on following amongst other grounds eac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2016 declaring income of ₹ 8,940/-. During the assessment the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee provided the accommodation entries of ₹ 5.38 crore M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust. The Assessing Officer on the basis of statement of the assessee recorded during the survey made addition @ 1% of commission on accommodation entries provided to M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust. No further appeal against the said addition was filed by assessee. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c). Notice under section 271(1) r.w.s. 274 was served upon the assessee. in response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed his reply dated 06.01.2017. The assessee in reply stated that during the survey action, he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 488,030 673,550 261,980 Tax on assessed income 71,231 53,154 70,771 8,444 B Tax on returned Income Returned Income 8,940 172,730 172,820 214,320 Tax on returned Income NIL 1,311 1,321 3,535 C Tax sought to be evaded (A-B) 71,231 51,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mated the income @ 1% of the total accommodation transaction receipt in the Bank statement of proprietary concern of the assessee. The Assessing Officer found that there was total transaction during the year of ₹ 5.38 crore. The Assessing Officer made addition of 1% commission on the entire transaction. No further appeal was filed by assessee against the said addition in the quantum assessment. We are conscious of the fact that penalty proceeding are separate and independent. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic on the basis of additions made or part of the additions sustained in the appeal. In the assessment, the addition can be on the basis of presumption for making estimated addition. 9. Admittedly, the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
