TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t decision in the case of CIT vs. JK Synthetic Ltd. [ 1996 (2) TMI 123 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held when the concealment proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) in a case is purely based on assessment order penalty cannot be levied. Levy of penalty in this case is not justified particularly when the assessment was framed on the income determined on estimate basis and without bringing any material on record to substantiate that the assessee willfully and intentionally concealed the income or furnished the inaccurate particulars of the income, hence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, we uphold the same and decide the issue against the Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 5102/DEL/2012 - - - Dated:- 31-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucing bills / vouchers, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are attracted. 5. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 6. The appellant crave leave to add, amend or modify any/ all the ground of appeal before or during the course of the appeal. It is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) is contrary to the facts on record and the settled position of law; and the order of the AO deserves to be restored. 3. The aforesaid appeal came up for hearing before the Bench on 09.5.2013 and 18.12.2014. In spite of notice to the assessee, non appeared on behalf of the assessee and the Bench adjourned the case for 30.12.2014 with the direction to issue notice through the Departmental Representative which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before us. 7. At the time of hearing Ld. Departmental Representative has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and reiterated on the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. 8. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records especially the impugned order dated 09.7.2012, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty in dispute by holding that the AO has passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) on the basis of the agreed additions in the Net Profit Ratio @5% on estimate basis as the assessee could not produce the relevant details asked for, during the course of assessment proceedings due to the fact that they were misplaced by the Accountant. As it was an agreed assessment, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of income. On the facts and circumstances of this case the assessee s conduct cannot be said to be contumacious so as to warrant levy of penalty. 8.2 In this regard, we find Ld. CIT(A) has rightly applied the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 2463 of 2010 which is squarely applicable in the present case of the assessee. In this case vide order dated 17.3.2010 it has been held that the law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meaning of word concealment and inaccurate continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
