2024 (10) TMI 1656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), for Assessment Years 2012-13& 2011-12, respectively, date of both the orders 24.06.2024. The impugned orders were emanated from the orders of the Learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (in brevity the ld. AO), orders passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of orders 16/03/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13 and 17/03/2022 for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. Both the appeals have common facts and circumstances; therefore, bothare heard together and are disposed of by this common order. ITA No. 4204/Mum/2024 is taken as lead case. ITA No. 4204/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2011-12) 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 was completed on 15/12/2016 under section 143(3)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs, the assessee filed the present appeals before us. 4. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in the record. The assessment was completed with an addition @5% of Rs. 1,71,492/- on the alleged bogus purchases and accordingly tax was levied. The assessee withdrew the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the penalty was levied on the basis of estimated addition of alleged bogus purchases. 5. The ld.DR argued and fully relied on the orders of revenue authorities. We find that in our considered view, the entire addition was made on the basis of the estimated addition @5% on the alleged bogus purchases. We respectfully relied on the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT-Mumbai in Fancy Diamonds Indi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal was merely on estimations. There is no definite finding on the quantum of concealment of income. It is an accepted legal position that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on additions made merely on estimations is unsustainable. 10. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishi Tire Retreading and Rubber Industries reported as 360 ITR 580 has held that where addition is made purely on estimate basis, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. A similar view has been expressed by 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 t....