TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that both the above cases were fixed for hearing on 05.01.2016 when none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any application was moved for adjournment. The appeals were, therefore, dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2016. Thereafter, the assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application, in pursuance to which both the appeals were recalled vide order dated 29.4.2016 and fixed for hearing before us. 3. The issue involved in both the appeals is identical and are therefore being dealt with by a common order. For the sake of convenience the facts in the case of appeal filed in ITA. No. 704/Chd/2015, pertaining to A.Y 2007-08, are being dealt with herewith and the same shall apply mutatis mutandis to other appeal of the assessee in ITA No.705/C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's contention and referring to Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as also, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P.Madhusudan Vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mangaram (2005) 276 ITR 362 (P&H), held that the assessee had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income and tried to evade taxes. The Assessing Officer held that had the case not been selected for scrutiny, the assessee would have evaded taxes of Rs. 4,50,000/- Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held the assessee liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly, imposed penalty of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... litigation and to buy peace of mind. The Ld. counsel for the assessee pleaded that in such circumstances no penalty was leviable. Reliance was placed on a number of case laws in this regard : a) CIT vs. Agrawal Round Rolling Mills Ltd. (88 CCH 036 ) (SC) b) CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (251 ITR 9 )(SC) c) CIT vs. Subash Kumar Jain (335 ITR 364) (P&HH C) d) CIT vs Rajnish Nath Aggarwal (219 CTR 590) (P & H HC) e) CIT vs Rajiv Garg & Ors (313 ITR 256 (P& H HC) f) Heranba Industries Ltd. vs DOT in ITA no. 2292/Mum/2013 vide order dated 08 7. The second line of argument of the Ld. counsel for the assessee was that the disallowance of expenditure and estimation of income was purely adhoc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... What emerges from the above is that the penalty has been levied for concealing ahata income to the extent of Rs. 3 lacs and wrongly claiming expenses on account of general and miscellaneous expenses amounting in all Rs. 50,000/-. Be that as it may, we find that there is no adverse finding either in the assessment order or the penalty order relating to aforesaid two issues except for the admittance by the assessee that he has returned his ahata income on estimate basis since the salesmen had not issued cash vouchers properly, as also the surrender on account of the same which we find, was accepted as such by the Assessing Officer. There is no finding either in the assessment order or the penalty order that the estimation of income by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "In order to attract Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or if he furnishes inaccurate particulars of such income. What is to be seen is whether the assessee in the present case had concealed his income as held by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal. He had not maintained any accounts and he filed his return of income on estimate basis. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the estimate of the assessee and brought his income to tax by increasing it to Rs. 2,07,500. This, too, was on estimate basis. The Tribunal agreed that the income of the assessee had to be assessed on an estimate of the turnover but was of the view that the....