TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c) of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in the business of timber trading. There was the survey operation carried out at the premises of the assessee under section 133A of the Act. As a result of survey, certain documents of incriminating nature were found. Accordingly the income of the assessee was estimated at the rate of 7% based on such incriminating documents which resulted in the addition of Rs. 16,98,943/- to the total income of the assessee. Thus the assessment was framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, vide order dated 29-12-2008 after making the impugned addition to the total income of the assessee. The AO simultaneously issued notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiating the penalty which was confirmed at Rs. 6,71,930/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who also confirmed the order of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR before us submitted that the addition ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n issuing a notice for penalty, but it was incumbent upon the Assessing Authority to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income had been furnished by them. If no such clear cut finding is reached by the authority, penalty cannot be levied. It was a case in which in final conclusion the authority had recorded that "I am of the opinion that it will have to be said that the assessee had concealed its income and/or that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." It was in this respect the Bench observed that "Now the language of "and/or" may be proper in issuing a notice as to penalty order or framing of charge in a criminal case or a quasicriminal case, but it was incumbent upon the IAC to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income had been furnished by the assessee.No such clear cut finding was reached by the IAC and, on that ground alone, the order of penalty passed by the IAC was liable to be struck down." The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of interest expenses vide order dated 6 January 2012 in ITA No. 1127/RJT/2010. The AO subsequently issued a notice under section 271(1)(c)/274 of the Act proposing the penalty on the amount of the addition confirmed by the ITAT. The assessee in response to such notice replied that the addition has been made on estimated basis, therefore there cannot be any penalty. However, the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee and levied the penalty of Rs. 40,90,779.00 being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 17. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who confirmed the order of the AO. 18. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 19. The learned AR before us contended that there cannot be any penalty for the concealment of income on the addition made on estimated basis. 20. On the other hand the learned DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the addition was made on estimated basis. Therefore in our considered view there cannot be any penalty qua to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al nationwide lockdown, the functioning of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai was severely restricted on account of lockdown by the Maharashtra Government, and on account of strict enforcement of health advisories with a view of checking spread of Covid 19. The epidemic situation in Mumbai being grave, there was not much of a relaxation in subsequent lockdowns also. In any case, there was unprecedented disruption of judicial wok all over the country. As a matter of fact, it has been such an unprecedented situation, causing disruption in the functioning of judicial machinery, that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in an unprecedented order in the history of India and vide order dated 6.5.2020 read with order dated 23.3.2020, extended the limitation to exclude not only this lockdown period but also a few more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that "In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown". Hon'ble Bombay High Court,....