TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de. In the case in hand the assessee, though explained the reasons for discrepancy in the fee recorded in the books of accounts however, the actual fee received by the assessee as detected during the survey proceedings is not in dispute therefore, such an explanation for discrepancies without any supporting evidence and proper details cannot be accepted as bona-fide or reasonable. No error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT (appeals) in sustaining the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c). The same is upheld. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.137/ALLD/2019 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2021 - Shri.Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Mr. Vinay Kumar Agarwal, CA For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER SHRIVIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.08.2019 of CIT (appeals)arising from penalty order passed under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:- (i) Because considering the facts and the circumstances of the case penalty of ₹ 9,54,952/- imposed under section 271 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or one month and multiplying by 12. Thus, the Ld. AR has contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is based on estimation of the income of the assessee and thereby the case of the assessee does not fall in the ambit of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. The Assessee Officer has estimated the fee receipt without considering the fact that for all the 12 months the receipt from the students is not uniformed but there are defaults and outstanding amounts in respect of the students who have left in between. The fee receipt recorded in the books of accounts by the assessee is supported by the fee receipts and therefore, it is the correct amount of fee received by the assessee during the year. Though the addition is sustained in the quantum proceedings however, the addition may made by the Assessing Officer is based on estimation. The Ld. AR has submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Privat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 Class-6 1 50 775 38750 10 Class-7 1 59 775 45725 11 Class-8 2 71 775 55025 12 Class-9 4 176 875 154000 13 Class-10 3 141 875 123375 14 Class-11 5-Science 2-Commerce 298 102 925 775 275650 79050 15 Class-12 3-Science 1-Commerce 200 498 925 775 185000 37200 Total 1405 11,58,075/ S. No. Class Annual charges No. of Students ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Act. Once the facts regarding the number of students and fee per student as recorded by the Assessing Officer are not in dispute then the estimation made by the Assessing Officer is not based on guesswork but it is the computation of the income on the basis of undisputed facts. There may be a discrepancy in the total quantum of the actual receipts due to the reason that there may be defaults on the part of the students in payment of fee or there may be drop out of the certain students. However, these facts had to be brought on record by the assessee to claim specific deduction on account of non receipt of the fee from the students. The assessee has not brought on record any material to show that certain number of students have not paid the fee. Even otherwise the non-payment of fee in time and showing the same as outstanding would not affect the total income for the year. Hence, the computation of school fee by the Assessing Officer for the entire year is based on the facts of actual receipts from the number of students which are not in dispute as found during the course of survey proceedings and therefore, multiplying the one month receipt by 12 to arrive at the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rivate Limited (supra) the dispute in the quantum proceedings was only regarding disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14 A of the Act. Therefore, it was found that the claim of the assessee for not making su-moto disallowance and such a disallowance was held not amounting to furnish inaccurate particulars of income due to the reason that all the primary facts were brought on record by the assessee. Similarly in the decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court the addition against which the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer was a trading addition after rejection of books of accounts and estimating the income whereas in the case in hand the addition is not a trading addition by estimating the N.P./G.P. but the Assessing Officer has made the addition on the basis of the undisputed facts detected during the survey proceedings. Accordingly, in the circumstances of the case I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the CIT (appeals) in sustaining the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c). The same is upheld. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court through vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
