TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered view that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed justified in deleting the penalty, as there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee have been proved by the Revenue and additions made on estimation by the Assessing Officer do not call for initiation of penalty. - Decided against revenue. - ITA no.6430/Mum./2019 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2021 - Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Mayur Kisnadwala For the Revenue : Shri Gurbinder Singh ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 26th July 2019, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate authority wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the claim of the assessee held that the sales have not been doubted then there was no question to doubt the purchases alone and the addition should have been made only to the extent of gross profit. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee has shown a gross profit rate of 38.5% and thus 38.5% of ₹ 26,39,791 comes to ₹ 10,16,320, which would be taken as profit of the assessee on purchases that are not fully and properly explained. The assessee s claim on account of unexplained investment under section 69C of the Act was partly allowed. Consequently, the Assessing Officer proceeded with the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been made or sustained on estimation basis the penalty v/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. In support of its claim the appellant has placed reliance on various judicial precedents as detailed above. The contentions of the appellant have been considered carefully. The Ld. AO had made the addition on account of bogus purchases at RS.26,39,791/-. However, the Ld. ClT(A) has restricted the same to 38.5% of such purchases/ accommodation entries. The facts of the case suggest that the Ld. AO had made said addition on the ground that the appellant could not prove the purchases under consideration from the parties concerned. It is also an admitted fact that the Ld. ClT(A) has restricted said addition to 38.5%, on estimated/ad-hoc basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 271(1)(c) at ₹ 3,15,000/- is DELETED. Accordingly the Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised in appeal are ALLOWED. 5. The Revenue being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Considered the submissions of the learned Departmental Authorities and perused the material on record. We find that the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on ad hoc disallowance under section 69C of the Act without adducing any evidence on record for concealment of income. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to be imposed only where the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Action of making ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
