TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 925
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stimate basis by applying the gross profit rate. 2. In doing so, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that where there is a justification for the admission of income, as in the instant case, the burden is on the assessee to prove that there is no concealment and where there is failure in that direction to discharge the burden, penalty is leviable. 3. Therefore on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order u/s.271(1) of the Act imposing the penalty of Rs. 16,54,292/- passed by the Assessing Officer." 2. Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 16,54,292/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of addition of additional income of Rs. 20 lacs in the return furnished in response to notice issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n finding that both the ingredients (Rs. 20,00,000 and Rs. 3,63,275) get merged at the end because the basis of concealment of income was admittedly suppressed sales. 3. Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised and having considered the same, CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee. Same has been opposed before us on behalf of Revenue inter alia submitted that CIT(A) was not justified in deleting penalty of Rs. 16,54,292/- levied by Assessing Officer by holding that penalty cannot be levied in respect of the addition made on estimate basis by applying the gross profit rate. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that where there is justification for admission of income, as in the instant case,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceedings. We find that assessee had disclosed the income of Rs. 440.00 lacs vide its letter dated 30.01.2006. Assessing Officer had received the intimation of suppressed sales from the Additional DIT (Investigation), Rajkot, vide his letter 24.03.2006 and on that basis the Assessing Officer had reopened the case for the AY. 1999-2000 vide notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.2006, which shows that Assessing Officer as only having the details of suppressed sales on the date of initiation of re-assessment proceedings. He was not having the details of undisclosed income embedded in the suppressed sales. Whereas, assessee had disclosed income of Rs. 20.00 lakhs embedded in suppressed sales long back vide its letter dated 30.01.2006. Thus, the disclosu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any penal action. During course of assessment, the aforesaid explanation given by assessee was neither rejected nor it was held to be mala fide. The Tribunal had recorded a pure finding of fact to the effect that Assessing Officer had not placed on record any material or evidence to discharge his burden of proving concealment. In the assessment order, no such finding had been recorded. Assessing Officer had simply rested his conclusion on assessee of having offered additional income in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 148. The Tribunal had further held that additional income so offered by assessee was done in good faith and to buy peace of mind. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court following Hon'ble Ape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income furnished in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Without prejudice to above, CIT(A) observed that Assessing Officer vide para-5(3) of penalty order had observed that both the ingredients (20,00,000 and Rs. 3,63,275) get merged at the end because the basis of concealment of income is admittedly suppressed sales. If it is considered, then the whole of the addition was made by applying the particular profit rate and the said addition is only on estimated basis. The penalty cannot be levied on estimated income as held by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. 221 ITR 110 (Guj). Similar view was expressed by Rajkot Bench in assessee's own case in ITA No. 15/RJT/2011 for A.Y. 2000-01 in case ....