2018 (1) TMI 1422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5,50,000/- (or Rs. 3,30,000/-) imposed by ld. AO 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 penalty of Rs. 5,50,000/- (or Rs. 3,30,000/-) imposed under section 271(1)(c). 2. The assessee craves her right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing." 2. The assessee is proprietor of M/s Silver Inn engaged in the business of manufacturing of gold & silver jewellery as well as handicrafts items. While completing the assessment u/s 143(3) on 24th December, 2009, the Assessing Officer made in addition equivalent 25% of unverifiable purchases made from certain parties. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erial on record. There is no dispute that the addition in question was made by the AO @ 25% of unverifiable purchases while completing the assessment u/s 143(3). There is no definite finding by the AO that the assessee has inflated 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e assessee falls within third category where the alleged fact of introduction of capital is found to be not proved satisfactorily. Therefore, it is not a case of positive concealment and benefit of doubt goes in favour 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 th....