TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 922
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he grounds inter alia that :- "1. That the order is against law & facts on record. 2. That Ld. CIT (A) was wrong in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without considering the submissions made by the appellant. 3. That Ld. CIT (A) was wrong in not considering the levy of penalty without pointing out the defaults for which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been imposed, i.e. whether for concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income or of both. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) was wrong in not considering various rulings cited by the appellant. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) was wrong in mentioning "....when these was no explanation regarding cash credit- --" although dispute was about penalty of concealment u/s 271(1)(c)." 2. Briefly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of unexplained unsecured loans and sundry creditors, however, affirmed the remaining addition and directed to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the AY 2005-06. On the basis of evidence which has come on record during the assessment proceedings, the AO came to the conclusion that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and thereby imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) who has affirmed the penalty order. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the penalty order passed by the AO and affirmed by the ld. CIT (A) vide impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the following reasons :- (i) that the entire exercise as to the assessment of the income on the basis of return of income qua the assessment year 2005-06, has been made on the estimation basis without perusing and rejecting the books of accounts; (ii) that in the first round of litigation, the AO estimated the turnover of the assessee at Rs. 74,31,000/- and GP rate at 37%, however the ld. CIT (A) reduced the turnover to Rs. 61,44,381/- and applied the GP rate of 33% again on the basis of guesswork; (iii) that in the second round of litigation, assessment order was passed on the basis of estimated tur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to impose the penalty; (viii) that the AO has not recorded his satisfaction to impose the penalty but merely recording the finding that, "Since the evidence has already been proved in the assessment order and the additions have been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A), hence it is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the A.Y. 2005-06 on the following additions, as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income :- (i) On account of G.P. on manufactured items: Rs.15,50,757/- (ii) On account of N.P. on trading items : Rs. 45,018/- Since the evidence has been proved in the assessment order and the above additions have been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A), M. Nagar, accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the impugned order is not sustainable; (xii) that when the penalty has been imposed merely on the basis of estimated turnover as well as estimated gross profit, necessary ingredients of section 271(1)(c) that, "concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" are missing and as such, the AO is precluded from imposing penalty; (xiii) that CIT (A) in its order dated 07.01.2013 has not made any independent enquiry or called any remand report if the assessee has actually indulged in making sales and purchases outside the books of accounts but blindly followed the assessment order passed by the AO; (xiv) that the AO has also proceeded to pass the assessment order with biased mind that the raid was....