AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 985
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- imposed by ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be ganted by deleting the said penalty of Rs. 11,38,321/- 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by ld. AO 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. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case Relief may please be granted by quashing the penalty imposed U/s 271(1)(c). 3. The assesse craves high right to add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee has submitted that in the quantum appeal the Tribunal has sustained the addition on the basis of the estimation of the income of the assessee and therefore, the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on the addition based on estimation of income of the assessee. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Mahendra Singh Khedla (2012) 252 CTR 453 as well as the decision in case of Shiv Lal Tak vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 373. The ld. AR of the assessee has also relied upon the various decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal on this point that the addition made on the basis of the estimation of the income would not attract levy of penalty U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income Rs. 66,66,740/- The said additions made by the AO has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) as well as by this tribunal in the quantum proceedings. It is apparent from the assessment order that the AO has made two separate additions one on account of trading addition and another on account of salary claimed by the assessee which was found to be bogus and false . Since the penalty was levied by the AO only in respect of the disallowance of salary therefore, the issue before us is only whether the disallowance made by the AO on account of salary claim attracts the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) or this addition is only on the basis of estimation of income. It is pertinent to note that during the course of assessment proceedings the AO recorded th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal number of employees were admitted to be only two. In view of these facts, the assessee was required to produce some of the employees for their verification that they were employed by the assessee during the period under consideration. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that since he closed his business w.e.f. 01.04.2013, he is not in touch with the employees as appearing in the list hence unable to produce them for verification. He completely failed to explain as to how number of employees are declared at 24 as against 2 admitted in his statement recorded u/s 131 as mentioned above. It is after thought of the assessee and he has just submitted a long list of employees without their addresses and PAN, unable to explain whether pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alary expense, it comes to Rs. 66,31,966 which gives a net profit rate of 0.12% which is comparable to another case of the entry provider, Mahesh Khandelwal wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has upheld estimate of net profit @ 0.10%. Besides, there is other income of Rs. 127,776 which has to be brought to tax separately." Thus, the Tribunal has confirmed the additions made by the AO and also observed that even after the addition made by the AO the net profit rate comes to 0.12% which is comparable to the another case which has been considered by the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal. Hence, the said finding of the Tribunal cannot be said to be an addition based on estimation but while upholding and confirming the additions made by the AO,....