2013 (7) TMI 1000

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bhavnesh Saini (Judicial Member) This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Gwalior dated 21.01.2013 for the assessment year 2005-06, challenging the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income at Rs. 3,80,217/- from contract business. Survey u/s. 133A was conducted on 23.02.2005 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee and applied profit rate of 8% on the total contractual receipts of Rs. 2,73,70,360/- and computed total income of the assessee at Rs. 21,89,628/-. The ld. CIT(A), however, vide order dated 21.08.2008 sustained the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on this issue and allowed the appeal of the assessee partly. The Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 704/2008 and the appeal of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re vs. JCIT (supra) vie order dated 28.06.2013 held as under : "4. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee did not produce the record/details before the AO. The assessee also did not produce books of account and vouchers. Therefore, the AO has to resort to estimate of income. The matter ultimately traveled to the Tribunal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and applying net profit for the purpose of making addition. All these decisions cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee clearly support the contention of the assessee that penalty is not leviable on estimate of income. Following the same decisions, we do not find it to be a fit case for levy of penalty. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty. ....