M/S SHRIRAM STONE COMPANY,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimation basis. Therefore, the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.
What were the facts?
The AO made an addition of Rs. 21,28,534/- on account of hawala purchases. The CIT(A) restricted this addition to Rs. 3,19,280/- on an estimation basis. Subsequently, the AO imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the addition is made on an estimation basis.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 03-05-2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“NFAC”) for assessment year 2009-10.
The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi justified in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.
We note that the AO added an amount of Rs.21,28,534/- to the total income of the assessee on account of hawala purchases vide its order dated 27-03-2015. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which in turn, disposed off the appeal restricting the addition on estimation basis to an extent of Rs.3,19,280/- (15% of Rs.21,28,534/-). Before us, the ld. AR vehemently contended that the addition was restricted on estimation basis, the penalty imposed by the AO is not maintainable. On perusal of the penalty order dated 23-03-2018, we note that the AO initiated penalty proceedings after disposal of the quantum appeal by the CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad wherein, as discussed above, modified the addition made by the AO. It is, therefore, clear that the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition which was made on estimation basis. It is settled law that no penalty lies on the addition made on ad-hoc/estimation basis. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) and as confirmed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is not justified. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08th June, 2023.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026