TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (8) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the matter as if the penalty was automatically imposable as a result of the sustenance of a small addition by the Tribunal. 3. The CIT(A) erred in observing that the Tribunal had found in assessment appeal that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have allowed the appeal in toto and ought to have deleted the additions. The grounds of appeal for subsequent asst. yr. 1977-78 are similar except that the amount of penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was Rs. 5620. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the aforesaid penalties under s. 271(1)(c) have been imposed by the assessing authority merely on the basis of findings given in the quantum proceedings by the assessing authority and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion made in the declared income does not represent actual income or real income of the assessee but the same is merely an estimated income which has been made by disbelieving the assessee's explanation given in quantum proceedings. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the authorities below have erred in imposing the penalties upon the assessee merely on the basis of the finding given in the quantum proceedings. He further contended that the authorities below have not brought any material during the course of the penalty proceedings to establish any charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income against the assessee. The leaned counsel, therefore, urged that since the penalty proceedings are based on incorrec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 37,247 to the assessee in relation to the said addition. How heavily this incorrect fact had weighted in the mind of the CIT(A) at the time of sustaining the penalties by him cannot be correctly visualised. We also find that the CIT(A), while sustaining the aforesaid penalties has heavily realied upon the findings given in the quantum proceedings. It will be worthwhile to reproduce the concluding portion of the order passed by the CIT(A): "Before me also it was mentioned that the ITAT has given relief but the fact remains that they have confirmed the view of the ITO that there was concealment of income but the extent of addition only has been reduced. Accordingly, as highest fact finding authority viz. ITAT has found that the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal clearly indicates that the amount of addition sustained by the Tribunal represents amount of estimated additions. The department has not brought any further material during the course of penalty proceedings to prove that the said estimated additions sustained by the Tribunal represent the real and actual income of the assessee pertaining to the years under consideration. The judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. VINAY CHAND HARILAL (1979) 8 CTR (Guj) 247 : (1979) 120 ITR 752 (Guj) cited by the learned counsel for the assessee supports the assessee's prayer that the mere fact that the explanation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings were rejected is no ground for levying penalty against the ass....