9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing out of the orders confirming penalties u/s 271B and section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act') relate to the Assessment Year 2010-11. Since both the appeals are based on common facts, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Rs.1.50 crore. By applying estimated profit rate of 5% on such sales, he made an addition of Rs.7.50 lac. That is how this solitary addition of Rs.7.50 lac was made. Thereafter, the AO imposed penalty u/s 271B and also u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which came to be countenanced in the first appeal. Both the penalties are under challenge before us. 3. In so far as the penalty u/s 271B is concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T and Anr. Vs. S.K. Gupta and Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All) by holding that requirement of getting the books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained. In the absence of the maintenance of books of account, there can be no penalty u/s 271B of the Act. In view of the foregoing legal position emanating from the judgments of the two Hon'ble High Courts, we are convince ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). In this case also, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court approved the view taken by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which was based on an estimate of income made by the AO. In view of the foregoing decisions, it is clear that the penalty so confirmed in the instant case cannot be sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
