AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and figures with regard to the computation were duly disclosed in the accounts. 4. For that the Ld. C. I .T(A) er red in confirming the penal ty simply because the assessee's claim for agricultural income was not accepted even though the land holding of the assessee was accepted. 5. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty confirmed is unjustified, not in accordance with law and is liable to be cancel led. 6. For that the order of the Ld. C. I .T(A) be modified and the asses see be given relief prayed for . 7. For that the assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground before or at the time of hearing. 3. Going by the above grounds, the only issue remains for our consideration is as to whether the CIT-A right in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is an individual and derives his income from salary, business, agriculture and from other sources. The assessee filed his return of income through on line and under scrutiny notice u/s. 142(1) was issued. In response to such notice the assessee filed detai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Kolkata ITAT, ITA No. 98/Kol/2013 Sri Birendra ath Saha Vs. DC1T 2. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court, CIT Vs Manu Eng. Works 122 ITR 306. 3. Hon'b1e Karnataka High Court Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 4. Kolkata ITAT C Bench, Ghosh Jewellery in ITA No. 2012/Koll2006 dt. 0811 0/20 15 7. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty by observing that the Assessee failed to produce any evidence regarding the agriculture income and the decisions relied on are not applicable to the Assessee's case which is reproduced as under: I have carefully gone through the submissions of the AR of the assessee but I am not convinced. The case laws relied upon by him are also not applicable in the instance case. The AO has mentioned in the assessment that the assessee could not produce any evidence regarding earning agricultural income as claimed in his return. Ownership of agricultural land cannot mean that the assessee was earning agriculture income in the absence of purchase and sale bills and documents regarding expenses incurred. The AR of the assessee admitted during the appellate proceedings also that such documents are not available with him. Hence, the AO had given a cat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the aforementioned grounds of appeal and contended that the AO initiated penalty proceedings on both the charges as mentioned in the notice issued u/s.274 of the Act. The Ld. AR argued that the penalty cannot be imposed for furnishing of inaccurate particulars without mentioning the specific charge of offence committed by the assessee i.e whether he has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and relied on the same decisions as submitted before the CIT-A and placed on record at pages 2 to 61 in paper book . The Ld.AR referred page no's-62, 63 of the paper book regarding the order of the Co-ordinate Bench, A Bench, Kolkata dated 04-05-2016 in assessee's own case in ITA No. 1237/Kol/2013 for the AY 2008-09. He argued that the Tribunal restricted the agriculture income at Rs. 10,00,000/- on estimation and penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of estimation and relied on the decisions in the cases of Hari Gopal reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H), Ravail Singh reported in 254 ITR 191 (P&H) and Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd reported in 303 ITR 53 (P&H) for such proposition and placed on record at page 64 of the paper boo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gone through the impugned order. The order passed by the Tribunal is based upon two decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429 : (2002) 254 ITR 191 (P&H) and Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 177 CTR (P&H) 580 : (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H). In both these decisions, this Court has held that in order to attract cl. (c) of s. 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. The provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are not attracted to cases where the income of an assessee is assessed on estimate basis and additions are made therein. It was held that when the addition had been made on the basis of estimate and not on account of any concrete evidence of concealment, then the penalty was not leviable. The similar view was also taken by this Court in CIT vs. Dhillon Rice Mills (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H), where the addition was made by the AO by estimating the yield of super phak as well as of chhilka and also the price of chhilka, that addition was reduced by the CIT(A). However, the penalty levied by the AO was deleted by the CIT(A). The....