TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(c) for ad hoc /estimated additions.Accordingly, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 1375/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year- 2011-12), ITA No. 1376/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year- 2012-13), ITA No. 1377/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year- 2010-11) - - - Dated:- 29-9-2017 - SH. G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee represented by : Sh. Viraj Mehta (AR) Revenue represented by : Sh. Ram Tiwari (Sr DR) Order under section 254(1) of Income-tax Act Per Pawan Singh Judicial Member; 1. This group of three appeals by assessee are directed against the different orders of Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 issued under section 148. The assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 was completed on 30 January 2015. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order made the addition on account of bogus purchases under section 37 of the Act. The assessing officer made the addition of ₹ 4,26,571/- being 25% of the alleged bogus purchases in the assessment order. The assessing officer initiated penalty while completing the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer levied the penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded vide order dated 21 July 2015. The AO levied a penalty of ₹ 1,31,810/-. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) the order of penalty was sustained. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volved in providing accommodation entries with of sale and purchase of the material. The assessee was one of such beneficiary who availed accommodation entry for inflating the profit. 5. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. The perusal of assessment order reveals that the assessing officer, while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) rws 147, made the addition on the basis of estimation. The assessing officer made addition @ 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. The revenue has not disputed that additions were made merely on the basis of estimation. It is settled law that no penalties is leviable under section 271(1)(c) for ad hoc /estimated additions. Sim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
