TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs. 62,802/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the penalty was levied on quantum additions made on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating that the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of such purchases by producing such parties before the Assessing Officer and the assessee failed to discharge his onus"? (2) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that the AO has estimated the income without appreciating that the A.O. has levied penalty. only after verifying the fact that the assessee evaded the taxes on quantum of additions m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing 2,88,797 2 27140610389V Daksha Enterprises 8,840 3 27250554020V Sheetal Trading Co. 57,299 4 27710642619V G.R. Trade Link 94,994 5 27820645517V V. M. Udyog 2,01,647 6 27870658730V Payal Enterprise 2,21,020 7 27710551730V MR Corporation 1,93,795 8 27720714054V Kumar Enterprises 2,569 9 27390623201V Shah Enterprise 5,57,006 Thereafter, the notices were given and after the reply of the assesse, the AO raised the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase in sum of Rs. 16,25,967/-. The penalty proceeding was initiated and after the notice, the penalty in sum of Rs. 62,802/- was levied. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r is more than 40 lacs, so Section 44 AD is not applicable, nonetheless the A. 0. has inspired with the provision of Section 44 AD and made the addition by estimating the net profit rate at 8 percent. Rejection of the books of account allowed the A. 0. to make the addition on estimate basis. When the addition is made on estimate basis, no penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the income Tax Act, can be imposed as per the ratio laid down in the case of Cl. T vs. ArjunPrasadAjit Kumar, (2008) 214 CTR (All) 355, where it was observed that: "Appeal (High Court)Substantial question of law Penalty under section 271 (l)(c CIT (A) deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that there being nothing on record that assesses's exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the precedents, as above and those relied upon by the appellant, I am of the considered view that the appellant has not concealed the particulars of income and nor has it furnished inaccurate particulars of income, there being are no findings of the AO that the details furnished by the appellant n his return are found to be inaccurate or erroneous of false. Accordingly, I delete the penalty of Rs. 62,802/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the grounds of appeal are Allowed." 5. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we find that the CIT(Appeals) has deleted the penalty on the basis of this fact when the profit was estimated then no penalty was leviable. The CIT(A) has relied upon the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the ....