9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013-2014. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the law, equity and justice. 2. The Ld. CIT has erred in law and/or on facts in upholding order of Ld. AO for levy of penalty for concealment of income, while Ld. AO had initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income during assessment proceedings. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or facts in upholding order of Ld. AO of levy penalty of Rs. 15,79,620/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 63 and submitted that the ITAT in the quantum proceedings restricted the addition to the tune of 15% of the expenses disallowed by the authorities below. In other words the disallowance was made on ad hoc and estimated basis for Rs. 766806/- being 15% of Rs. 51,12,040/- only. Thus it was contended by the Ld. AR that the addition was made on estimated basis, therefore the penalty cannot be levied under the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR in support of his contention relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Ramesh chandra Vs. ACIT in tax appeal No. 800 of 2008 vide order dated 10/08/2016. The relevant extract of the order is repro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court suggesting the question of law is involved. In such type of issue it cannot be said that the explanation submitted by the assessee in support of its addition as false, proving the fact that the assessee has concealed its income. Similarly, the assessee has given explanation with regard to the issue of bogus purchases. Us explanation was accepted by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the quantum appeal but such conclusions of the learned Commissioner of Income-lax (Appeals) did not meet the approval of the Tribunal. But again the hon'ble High Court has admitted the question on this aspect also. Therefore, it is also debatable issue. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has considered both these aspects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We accordingly, order so and confirm the disallowance of expenses at Rs. 7,66,806/- partly allow assessee's appeal. 9.1. From the above findings of the Tribunal there remains no ambiguity that addition were reduced by the ITAT to extent of 15% which is purely on estimated basis and balance amount to the tune of 85% has been treated as genuine. Thus it can be inferred that there was no deliberate act on the part of the assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars of income. 9.2. Therefore, in our considered view there cannot be any penalty in the hands of the assessee. For this preposition we draw strength from the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra A Shah (Supra). We also draw support and guidance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
