9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has challenged the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, amounting to Rs.1,10,781/- and Rs.46,116/- respectively. As both these appeals are identical on facts, we hereby pass a consolidate order by taking ITA No. 2326/Mum/2022 as the lead case. ITA No. 2326/Mum/2022 3. It is observed that as there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, we hereby proceed to decide this appeal by hearing the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) and on perusal of the available material on record. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee firm is a reseller engaged in the business of trading in stationery, general items and derives income from bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A), confirming the penalty levied by the A.O. before us on the grounds of non striking of irrelevant limb u/s. 271(1)(c) and on the ground that penalty cannot be levied on estimated gross profit basis. Ground no. 1 is general in nature and ground nos. 2 & 3 pertains to non striking of the irrelevant limb, i.e., inaccurate particulars of facts and concealment of income. From the penalty order and the assessment order dated 20.03.2019, it is observed that the A.O. has levied the impugned penalty for both furnishing of inaccurate particulars and for concealment of income. Since the lower authorities have levied the penalty on both the limbs, we are not inclined to decide ground nos. 2 & 3. Ground no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53 and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110. It is observed that all the above mentioned decisions have reiterated the proposition that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied in case where the addition is made on estimated basis. It is evident that there are plethora of other decisions by the Hon'ble High Court's and various benches of the tribunal which had held the said proposition. In the present case in hand, it is observed that the A.O. has made addition @ 2.58% + 3% on VAT which was restricted by the ld. CIT(A) to 2.58% of gross pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
