2017 (9) TMI 1979

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... December 2016 for assessment year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order(s) confirmed the penalty levied by assessing officer under section 271(1)( c) of the Act. Facts of all the cases are almost similar except variation in figures of penalty. Considering the commonality of fact and identical grounds of appeal all the appeals were heard together and are decided by common order. For appreciation of fact we are referring the fact for assessment year 2010-11 in ITA No.1377/M/2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; (a) The ld Commissioner (Appeals) erred in levying penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act on the ground that the additions has been made on and estimate basi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent appeal before us. 3. We have heard ld AR of the assessee and DR for revenue and perused the material available on record. The learned AR of the assessee argued that the assessee has neither concealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. The assessee furnished complete detail of his purchases to substantiate his expenses incurred on account of purchases during the relevant assessment year. The assessing officer made the addition only on the estimation basis on account of the alleged bogus purchases. It was argued that no penalty is leviable on the addition made on the basis of estimation/ad hoc basis. In support of the submission the ld AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision; (i) CIT Versus Ravail Sin....