Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 752/JP/2016
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 752/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Satyanarayan Soni, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Prop.- M/s Radhika Jewellers, Ward -7(2), Jaipur. Kunj Gali, Phagi, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABXPS 3995 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Jain (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 02/05/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is the appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur dated 18/5/2016 for the A.Y. 2010-11. The only issued involved in the appeal is confirming the penalty of Rs. 61773/- levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).
Earlier, this case was dismissed by the ITAT vide order dated 14/3/2017 for want of prosecution. Against which the assessee filed Misc.
ITA 752/JP/2016_ 2 Satyanarayan Soni Vs ITO
application being M.A. No. 110/JP/2017 and vide order dated 08/1/2018,
the ITAT recalled its order dated 14/3/2017.
During the hearing, the assessee has also taken additional ground
wherein he challenged the issuance of notice for levying of penalty U/s
271(1)(c) of the Act for not specifically pointed out whether penalty was
proposed on concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing
inaccurate particulars of income.
On the issue of additional ground, we have heard both the sides.
The Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty in the assessment order
itself for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate
particulars of income. Thus, the assessee was sufficiently noticed about
the limbs on which the penalty initiated on both the grounds for
concealing of particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars
of income. There was a survey operation at the business premises of the
assessee. The assessee has not maintained books of account except a
register where he used to write details. In the return of income, the
assessee shown his income on estimate basis and books of account viz
cash book, ledger, purchase/sales vouchers and expenses vouches were
not maintained. The assessee has shown meager gross profit of Rs.
ITA 752/JP/2016_ 3 Satyanarayan Soni Vs ITO
23,365/- on sales of Rs. 2,52,836/-. There were entries in the loose
papers found during the survey, which suggests that total sales recorded
in these papers were taken into consideration to workout taxable income.
The estimate of unaccounted income was based on the documents found
during the survey operation U/s 133A of the Act. In view of these facts,
the additional ground raised by the assessee has not merit and the same
is dismissed.
On the issue of levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, we find
that the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty only of Rs. 20,600/- for
furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, it is noticed that the
assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) taking the amount of
penalty at Rs. 61,773/- and the ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the amount
of this penalty, thus there is apparent mistake. The Assessing Officer has
levied penalty on the estimated the sales at Rs. 3.00 lacs and by applying
the GP rate @ 30% made addition of Rs. 66,635/- The addition of Rs.
6,635/- is based on estimates of sales and then estimated the G.P. rate @
30%. Thus, this is an addition based on estimates. In our considered view
of these facts, we direct to delete the penalty of Rs. 20,600/- levied by
the Assessing Officer.
ITA 752/JP/2016_ 4 Satyanarayan Soni Vs ITO 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/05/2018.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko fot; iky jko fot; iky jko½ fot; iky jko ¼Hkkxpan Hkkxpan Hkkxpan½ ½ ½ ½ Hkkxpan (VIJAY PAL RAO) (BHAGCHAND) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj Tk;iqj@Jaipur Tk;iqj Tk;iqj fnukad@Dated:- 03rd May, 2018 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Satyanarayan Soni, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward- 7(2), Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 752/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत