SUKHWINDER SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, W-3, KURUKSHETRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 180/CHANDI/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 October 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars or conceal income, as the nature of his civil contracting work made it difficult to produce all bills and vouchers. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was ordered to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were time-barred by 35 days, which the tribunal condoned. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's books of account and estimated income by applying a 12% GP rate, which was later scaled down by the ITAT to 6%.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable when the assessee could not produce all bills and vouchers due to the nature of his business, and the income was estimated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश/Order

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders dated 26.10.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal [hereinafter referred to as’ CIT(A)’ ].

2.

Both the appeals are time barred by 35 days. Separate applications for Condonation of delay in filing the appeals have been filed by the assessee. Considering the submissions of the assessee in the

ITA Nos. 179 & 180/Chd/2019 Shri Sukhwinder Singh, Patiala 2 applications and shortness of the delay period of only 35 days, the delay

in filing the present appeals is hereby condoned

3.

At the outset, the Ld. proxy counsel for Shri S.K. Mukhi has

invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) which

revealed that in this case the books of account were rejected and the

income of the assessee was estimated by applying an estimated gross

profit (GP) rate of 12% by the Assessing Officer which was scaled

down by the ITAT, Chandigarh to 6%. Further, perusal of the order

reveals that the books of account were rejected because the assessee had

not produced certain bills and vouchers in relation to the claim of

expenditure.

3.

After going through the facts, we are of the view, that these are

not the cases where the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars

of income or concealed the income. The assessee is a Civil contractor

and the plea of the assessee has been that his nature of work was such

that it was not possible to produce all the bills and vouchers.

Considering the above plea, the Tribunal directed for estimating of the

income at 6% of the GP as against 12% estimated by the Assessing

Officer.

ITA Nos. 179 & 180/Chd/2019 Shri Sukhwinder Singh, Patiala 3 Under the circumstances, we do not think it a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act and the penalty levied in these appeals

accordingly is ordered to be deleted. In the result, both the appeals stand allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court immediately on completion of hearing.

Sd/- Sd/- (अ�नपूणा� गु�ता / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member

Dated : 30.10.2019 “आर.के.”

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →