TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied, is purely an estimated addition. It is settled position in law that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied on additions made on estimation. The similar view was taken in Manish Dhirajlal Mehta [ 2014 (11) TMI 939 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] , Vijay Proteins Ltd.[ 2015 (1) TMI 828 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] , Vijay Proteins [ 2015 (1) TMI 828 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] and other various cases. No contrary facts or law is brought to our notice by the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue at the time of hearing of these appeals. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we direct to delete the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 132 And 133/SRT/2021 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the case of assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing that a search action was conducted on Rajendra Jain and his group on 03/10/2013. In the search, certain incriminating material was found leading to conclusion that Rajendra Jain group was indulged in providing accommodation entries in the name of bogus sales and unsecured loans. During the search, it was also found that the assessee was one of the concern controlled by Rajendra Jain group and was involved in providing accommodation entries. On the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. The assessing officer after receipt of order of ld CIT(A) in quantum assessment issued notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) to the assessee. The assessee vide his reply dated 10/09/2018 contended that the appeal of assessee in quantum assessment was dismissed vide order dated 26/04/2017 and the appeal of assessee in quantum assessment is pending before the Tribunal that the matter may be kept in abeyance. The request of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded thereby levied the penalty of Rs. 2,70,996/- in his order dated 27/03/2019. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the penalty was upheld. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed this ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Gujarat High Court); * Vijay Proteins Ltd., Vs CIT (Income Tax Reference No.139 of 1996), (Gujarat High Court); * Awadhesh Bansiraj Pandey Vs ITO (ITA No.4784/ Mum/2018) Mumbai Tribunal and * DCIT Vs Anil J Kothari ( 2048/Ahd/2010), Surat Tribunal. 7. Considering the fact that addition in the assessment order, on the basis of which the penalty was levied, is purely an estimated addition. It is settled position in law that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied on additions made on estimation. The similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Manish Dhirajlal Mehta Vs. ACIT, Vijay Proteins Ltd., Vs. CIT (supra), in Vijay Proteins Vs CIT (supra) and other various cases. No contrary facts or law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total Import 22,22,18,082/- Total turnover (Excluding import group turnover) 7,09,10,056/- @ 0.02% 14,182/- Import made 22,22,18,082/- @ 0.20% 4,44,436/- Loan outstanding at year end 1,33,44,485/- @ 0.50% 66,722/- Total commission income earned 5,25,340/- Deduction of expenses of 25% is given for paper transactions related cost as the such 1,31,335/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
