9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal: "1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), though the notice u/s 274 had been issued in mechanical manner in pre-printed form, without intimating the charge as to whether the penalty is proposed to be levied for 'Concealment of income' or 'Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'; 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), though the initiation of penalty in the assessment order had been made without any charge of 'Concealment of income' or 'Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' 3.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sallowances of aggregate purchases of Rs. 8.78 Crore. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the addition was restricted to 5% of the whole of the purchase shown by the assessee. On further appeal before the Tribunal, by assessee as well as revenue, the additions/ disallowances was restricted to the extent of disputed purchases only in order dated 18/07/2019 passed in ITA No. 2932 and 3277/Ahd/2016. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that admittedly, the addition in the quantum assessment was ultimately restricted/upheld on estimation basis. It is settled law that in the income tax proceedings, no penalty is leviable on addition made on estimated additions. So the penalty levied by the assessing officer is liable to be deleted. To support his sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income ultimately the stand of department is upheld in restricting the addition to the extent of 5%. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition upheld in the quantum assessment proceedings. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We have also perused material on record. We have also deliberated on various case laws. We find that initially the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 21/12/2009 assessing total income at Rs. 7,02,370/- against the income declared at Rs. 3,26,280/-. Subsequently, the case of assessee was reopened under section 147 on the basis of information received from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmitted position that ultimately disallowance of restricted on estimation basis. It is settled law under the income tax proceedings that no penalty is leviable on the addition restricted on estimation basis. Similar view was taken by this combination in Yogendra Raj U Sanghvi (supra) and in Nazar Impex in ITA No. 132 & 133/Srt/2021. Thus, following the similar principle, the penalty levied by Assessing Officer vide order dated 20/03/2018 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act will not survive. 7. Considering the fact that we have allowed the appeal of assessee on preliminary submission of ld. AR of the assessee, therefore, adjudication on other contentions/grounds of appeal raised by the assessee have become academic. 8. In the result, this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
