TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 466
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. A.O. in imposing the penalty of Rs. 43,122/- U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the said penalty of Rs. 43,122/- imposed under section 271(1)(c). (b) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. A.O. has erred in imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c) without specifically pointing out whether the penalty was proposed on concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The action of the ld. A.O. is illegal, unjustified arbitrary and against the facts of the case.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....naccurate particulars of income. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahendra Singh Khedla (2012) 252 CTR 453 (Raj) as well as the decision in the case of Shiv Lal Tax Vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 373 (Raj). The ld AR has also relied upon the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal dated 16/1/2017 in the case of Shri Vikram Singh Vs DCIT in ITA No. 143/JP/2016 as well as decision dated 22/12/2016 in the case of Deepak Dalela Vs ITO in ITA No. 1027/JP/2013. The ld AR has also relied on the following decisions of this Tribunal: (i) ITA No. 668/JP/2016, Shri Hemant Srivastava Vs ITO order dated 08/01/2018. (ii) ITA No. 237/JP/2016, Smt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remain unverifiable. Once the summons issued were not complied with the onus shifted on the assessee to produce the sellers alongwith the stock registers for verification of the transactions. This was not done and so the onus was not discharged by the assessee. Further it is not understood as to how the appellant was able to produce confirmations from these alleged sellers but was not able to produce them. In view of the consistent view taken by the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of jewelers and the facts of the case, the rejection of books of accounts by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) is upheld. Regarding estimation of income it is clear that the facts of the assessee are different from the case laws relied on by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....flated the purchase to the extent of 25% but it was only estimation of the AO to make addition which was subsequently restricted by this Tribunal to 15% of unverifiable purchase. Thus even the addition in quantum proceedings attained the finality it is not based on the finding that the assessee has inflated the purchases and suppressed the income or claim of the assessee was absolutely bogus. The AO has only doubted the purchases from certain parties and made the addition only to the extent of 25% of purchases made from such parties instead of disallowing entire purchases from those parties. When the AO has not given any finding of bogus purchases then the disallowance made by the AO is only based on estimation which was restricted by this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee. There is no dispute that trading addition was made on the basis of estimation because the results shown by the assessee was not found satisfactory by the AO. Where an estimated addition was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee to the extent of amount in difference shown by the assessee and estimated by the department depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. .............. Under these circumstances when in the present case there was no positive evidence beyond doubt regarding estimated trading addition that the amount in difference between the result shown by the assessee and that estimated by the AO was resultant of concealment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee towards the addition in question. The first appellate order on the issue is thus upheld." 8. The above finding of the Tribunal makes it clear that additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on estimation only. A fact or allegation based on estimation cannot be said to be correct only, it can be incorrect also. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty was wrongly levied by the Assessing Officer. The basis for levying penalty in the present case is only estimation, which is purely a question of fact and there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by first appellate authori....