TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by taking ITA No. 4402/Mum/2023 as a lead case and its finding will be applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals wherever it is applicable. ITA No. 4402/Mum/2023 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC erred in confirming the order passed under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer levying penalty of Rs. 2,18,350. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC erred in ignoring the facts that the additions made on estimated basis on account of difference in gross profit margin from sales against purchases from the party alleged to be non-genuine on which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is levied." 2. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct vide order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.03.2019, the AO has levied penalty of Rs. 2,18,350/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by the assessing officer. 5. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel submitted that impugned penalty levied is bad in law without proving concealment of particulars of income and assessing officer also failed to disprove the claim of the assessee that he had actually made the purchases. The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Jatin Enterprises Vs. ACIT 19(2), vide ITA No. 3885/Mum/2023 dated 21.03.2024. On the other hand, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has already submitted purchase details alongwith correspondence sales and bills along with stock details. The assessee firmly believes that there are valid reasons for not treating purchases as fictious and also believes that no addition on account of disallowance of purchase should be made. The assessee has request to consider the case amicably. Assessee plead for non-levy of penalty of prosecution as consent letter is given to buy peace of mind and avoid further litigation cost, since the assessee has submitted all the documentary evidences in connection with the purchases from the said dealers. Kindly consider the same." However, the assessing officer has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and estimated profit elem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. reported as 303 ITR 53. The Hon'ble High Court approving the order of Tribunal held that when the addition has been made on the basis of estimate and not on any concrete evidence of concealment, penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is not livable. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd. reported as 221 ITR 110 has taken a similar view in respect of penalty levied u/s. 271(l){c) of the Act on estimated additions. There are catena of decisions by different High Courts and various Benches ....