TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as relied upon the decision in the case of Kalindi Rail Nirman Engineering Ltd. [ 2014 (4) TMI 679 - DELHI HIGH COURT] for sustaining levy of penalty. In our considered opinion learned CIT(A) has passed reasonable order. Appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 4431/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) - - - Dated:- 10-2-2021 - Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) And Shri Pavankumar Gadale (JM) Assessee by None Department by Shri Vijay Kumar Menon ORDER Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 7.5.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11. 2. Grounds of appeal read as under :- The Ld.DCIT 4(2), Mumbai is not justified in: 1) Lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot supported by any third party documentary evidences. On the basis of this information, the assessment was re-opened. The re assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 after rejecting the books since, the assessee could not substantiate its claim of expenses for the relevant year. The income of the assessee was thereafter estimated by the AO at ₹ 15,11,441/- @ 0.75% of the gross receipts shown of ₹ 20,15,25,477/- and the re-assessment completed on 06.10.2017. The AO, also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Apparently, the assessee did not contest the action of the AO of re-assessing its income at ₹ 15,11,441/-. Thereafter the AO has levied penalty of ₹ 2,32,305/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave proper third party supportings of ₹ 20.05 crores have not been estimated but it is only the profit/income earned which has been estimated by applying a rate of 0.75 % on the gross receipts shown by the assessee. Therefore, the benefit of non levy of penalty cannot be extended to the assessee more so since huge expenses of ₹ 20.05 crores were found to be not supported by proper third party evidences. In support of the view that even on such estimated additions, concealment penalty can be levied, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kalindi Rail Nirman Engg. Ltd. 51 taxmann.com 523 (Delhi) wherein levy of penalty on the additions made by estimating the income of the assessee by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispose of the appeal by hearing learned Departmental Representative and perusing records. We note that in this case the assessee was engaging into bogus accommodation entries. The gross receipt shown at ₹ 20.15 crores income was estimated by the Assessing Officer @ 0.75% for amount of ₹ 15,11,441/-. The assessee did not contest quantum. In penalty and appellate proceedings also it did not make convincing submission. It is noted that the issue in dispute was bogus expenses to the tune of ₹ 20.05 crores. Learned CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kalindi Rail Nirman Engineering Ltd. (51 taxamnn.com 523) for sustaining levy of penalty. In our considered opinion learned CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
