TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 2,81,669/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. 3. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. 4. Ground 4. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing." 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee (ITA No.534/SRT/2025) are as follows: "1. Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1 Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls filed by the assessee are late by 66 days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. It has been stated that notices of hearing were issued to the wrong e-mail Id, i.e., '[email protected]' instead of '[email protected]', which was mentioned in Form 35. The CIT(A) passed order on 23.12.2024 and due date for filing of appeal before the Tribunal on 28.02.2025. It came to know about the appeal order while checking the status in Income-tax Portal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the delay in filling appeal neither malafide nor deliberate on the part of the appellant. He requested that in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned and admitted for hearing. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue did not have any objection, if the delay is condoned. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that the delays in filing these appeals were not deliberate and intentional on the part of assessee. Moreover, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO levied penalty, which was also confirmed by the CIT(A). The AO levied the penalty by observing that the assessee had not carried out any business activity and, hence, various data, such as purchases, sales, loans etc. disclosed in the return of income were bogus. Therefore, assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. During penalty proceedings, the assessee requested to keep the proceedings in abeyance because appeal had been filed before ITAT. The AO did not accept the request of the AO. He referred to Explanation - 1 below section 271(1), which raises a presumption that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income shall be deemed or represents the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Hence, he levied minimum penalty of Rs. 2,81,669/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the appeal before the CIT(A), the appellant submitted that the issue is already decided by the jurisdictional Surat Tribunal in case of its sister concern, M/s Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. vide order in ITA Nos.132 & 133/SRT/2021, dated 30.03.2022. The appellant also submitted that penalty cannot be levied just because assessed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only on the ground that assessed income is higher than returned income. He also submitted that the AO himself was not sure whether the income is assessable in the hands of the appellant or Shri Rajendra Jain; therefore, penalty cannot be levied. The ld. AR also submitted that penalty cannot be levied because commission income was computed on estimation basis. He also relied upon the following decisions (i) Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), (ii) Sanjay Chaudhary (HUF), ITA No.618/SRT/2023, (iii) Ramesh Kumar Jain vs. ACIT, ITA No.4670- 73/MUM/2018, (iv) Hema R. Gupta, ITA No.2639/Mum/2015, (v) Shah Virchand Govanji Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, ITA No.2631/AHD/2014 and (vi) Trupti Piyush Shah vs. DCIT, ITA Nos.186 & 187/SRT/2019. 10. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. She submitted that the case of revenue right from the beginning is that the assessee was engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries and thus, furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The stand of revenue is upheld in sustaining the addition of the estimated commission income. Therefore, the penalty....