TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11.2012 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1990-91 on the grounds inter alia that :- "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 05.02.2014 confirming the penalty levied u/s 272A(1 )(c) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in holding the penalty order passed u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act imposed on addition of gross profit on estimated sales which does not tantamount of concealment. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lfully and knowingly filed concealed particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 7,28,194/ - in respect of profit on undisclosed sales as confirmed by, the Hon'ble IT AT in its order and as per the Explanation 1 to Section 271 (1) (c) the said amount is deemed to be the income on which tax was sought to be evaded. In view of above discussion it is clear that penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is attracted in the Assessee's case. Minimum and maximum penalty imposable in the case is computed as under:- Concealed income Rs, 7,28,194/- Tax on amount of income concealed @ 55 % Rs, 4,00,507/- Minimum penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) @ 100% Rs. 4,00,507/- Maximum penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) @ 300% Rs.12,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of penalty order is barred by limitation, hence not sustainable; that merely disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee does not amount to concealment; that the entire assessment has been made by the AO on the basis of estimation by taking net profit rate at 10% which also does not amount to concealment of taxable income. However, on the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the ld. CIT (A). 8. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments addressed by the authorized representatives of the parties, the first question arises for determination in this case is:- "as to whether penalty order passed against the assessee on the basis of the assessment order dated 30.03.1993 is ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner, whichever is later;" 10. Bare perusal of the provisions contained u/s 275(1)(a) of the Act goes to prove that penalty order is required to be passed by the revenue authorities within a period of six months from the receipt of order of Appellate Tribunal by the Commissioner. Undisputedly, in the instant case, assessment order was passed by the AO on 30.03.1993 and appeal against the said order before the CIT (A) was dismissed vide order dated 15.04.1996 but ITAT restored the appeal back to CIT (A) on 22.04.1999 and in pursuant thereto, the CIT (A) passed the order dated 29.10.2004 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undisclosed sales made by the assessee and the AO after invoking provisions contained u/s 145 (2) of the Act applied the gross profit rate of 10%; and (ii) that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs. 32,658/- which was disallowed by the AO. 15. First of all, so far as question of applying the gross profit rate of 10%, further reduced to 4% by the Appellate Tribunal, after rejecting the books of account by the AO on estimation basis is concerned, the same does not amount to concealment of income by the assessee because the assessee during the assessment proceedings put forth book results, audited balance sheets, etc. before the AO but the same has been rejected by AO by invoking the provisions contained u/s 145(2) of the Act....