TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions on similar circumstances in quantum proceedings the disallowance itself has been deleted. In our considered opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, assessee cannot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of Hindustan Steel Ltd., vs. State of Orissa [ 1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] where in it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. As tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before ITAT. The revenue has tried to make out a case that since the addition was made pursuant to information from sales tax depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer did not doubt the sales. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also levied. Ld CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding as under:- 4. Decision. Having gone through the 271(1) (c) order and the submissions made by the Appellant there is merit in the arguments of the appellant for the reason that although the A.O. has estimated 20% gross profit on alleged bogus purchases, never made any observations with regard to the incorrectness in details filed by the assessee to prove such purchases and the penalty order is silent on the issue as to how this satisfaction of concealment /furnishing of inaccurate particulars was arrived at. Therefore, the qualification of the alleged concealment/inaccurate particulars is only an estimate and it is set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons on similar circumstances in quantum proceedings the disallowance itself has been deleted. In our considered opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, assessee cannot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of the Hindustan Steel Ltd., vs. State of Orissa reported in 82 ITR 26 where in it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. 5. We further note that tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before ITAT. The revenue has tried to make out a case that sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
