2014 (12) TMI 1411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the fact that the assesee failed to produce any supporting bills or vouchers despite being given sufficient opportunity to do so and therefore, agreed to assessment of NP @5%. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act which also provide that where a person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bonafide, the amount added in computing the total income of such person shall be deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the explanation of the assessee at face value that his accountant had misplaced the bills and vouchers which led to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....we are deciding the issue in dispute exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR. 4. The brief facts of the case are that in this case assessment was completed on 30.12.2010, assessing the income at Rs. 80,55,870/- as against the declared income of Rs. 32,00,692/- in the return of income by taking the net profit @ 5% of the gross turnover, after the assessee had failed to produce the books of accounts and other supporting vouchers, bills etc. even after being afforded numerous opportunities. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were also initiated and penalty of Rs. 16,60,000/- was imposed upon the assessee vide order dated 22.6.2011. 5. Against the penalty order of the Assessing Officer, Asseess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gs u/s. 271(1)(c) in a case is purely based on assessment order penalty cannot be levied. He further stated that there are judicial pronouncements that mere fact that certain addition / disallowance does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there was concealment of income. In support of his contention he referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), he stated that penalty based merely on the finding given in assessment order is not valid. Ld. CIT(A) has cited various decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Courts in support of his contention and accordingly find that no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was leviable....