TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 2037
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.02.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-24, New Delhi for A.Y. 2005-06 wherein vide the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has upheld the levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 2,67,390/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Assessment year 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty of Rs. 2,67,390/- which was upheld by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) on appeal. 2.1 Now, the assessee is before the ITAT challenging the upholding of penalty by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). 3.0 The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has been maintaining regular books of accounts with respect to the hire charges and maintenance charges but the Ld. Commissioner of Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion for our consideration is whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is sustainable with respect to disallowance which has been partially deleted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) on ad hoc/estimated basis. It is undisputed in the present appeal that the quantification of the alleged concealment/inaccurate particulars is only an estimate and it is settled law that penalty is not attracted on estimat....