9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the CIT(A)'] dated 01/09/2023, for the Assessment Year 2009-10, confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[ in short 'the Act']. 2. Shri Rajesh Bhende appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer vide asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assessing Officer had made addition merely on estimations, which was reduced by the CIT(A) . It is a settled legal principle that no penalty can be levied on addition based on estimations. To support his submissions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) DCIT vs. Shyam Kundandas Gyanchandani, ITA No.2559/Mum/2022 For A.Y. 2009-10, decided on 03/02/2023. (ii) Fancy Diamond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions made by rival sides. It is an undisputed fact that the Assessing Officer has made addition in the case of assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer made addition of 100% of unproved purchases, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of such purchases. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and subsequently restricted by the CIT(A) to 12.5% is merely on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 271(l){c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches of the Tribunal wherein penalty levied u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on estimated additions has been held to be unsustainable. 6. Thus, in the facts of the instant case and the decisions referred above, we hold penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act unsustainable. Ergo, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -striking of irrelevant matter would render the notice defective and such defective notice vitiate the penalty proceedings. In the present case, we find that in assessment order the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income only. Since, both limbs i.e. "concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income" are reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
