2006 (7) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....99 of 2004 filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal has set aside the penalty levied on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). We have heard counsel for the patties and have perused the order passed by the Tribunal. While accepting the ple....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ration. The Revenue cannot rely on facts like record of other traders and admission made by the assessee in some other years to establish the case of penalty in the years of account. Reverting to the question whether onus under Explanation (1) has been discharged in these cases, we find that the Revenue has justified this action by presuming that the assessee must have charged commission at 1 1/2 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... out that the commission at 1 per cent. was charged in the four years under appeal. It is not improbable. Similar principles have been applied by courts where estimates were taken on purely estimate basis and penalty imposed. See the case of Harigopal Singh v. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P & H) where income was taken at Rs. 1,50,000 against Rs. 52,000 disclosed by the assessee. Even then their Lordship....