GANESH VISHNU KHANOLKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26 (1), MUMBAI
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 is not leviable when income is estimated, citing decisions from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and Gujarat High Court. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee was informed by the Sales Tax Department about bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 86,25,759/-. The Assessing Officer added 25% of this amount to the assessee's income and levied a penalty. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the addition to income is based on estimation and not on specific evidence of bogus purchases.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Harigopal Singh v. CIT203 citing258 ITR 85 · 2002 · HC
- National Textiles v. CIT134 citing164 CTR 2009 · 2001 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM
O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the penalty levied by the AO has been ordered to be confirmed.
The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. Upholding the penalty levied by the teamed Assessing officer, being 100% of tax on the addition to income u/s 271(1)(e) of A.Y. 2011-12 the Income Tax Act. 1961 when the original addition has been made on conjecture and the suppliers are not bogus as alleged but have merely failed to pay the sales tax and accordingly mentioned as suspicious/hawala dealers by the sales tax department, then existence and the fact of sale has not been disproved.
2. Upholding the penalty levied by the learned Assessing officer, being 100% of tax on the addition to income u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 when the copies of purchase invoices, corresponding sales invoices, quantitative details and proof of payment by account payee cheque for the purchase price have been provided and purchase has actually been made and is genuine.
3. Upholding the penalty levied by the learned Assessing officer, being 100% of tax on the addition to income u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 when in (act addition has been made on the basis of confession before sales tax officer and neither statement was recorded by the Assessing officer, nor copy of material relied upon furnished to appellant, nor opportunity given to the appellant to cross examine the panics who had made the confession statement, when the material has been used against the appellant.
4. Upholding the penalty levied by the learned Assessing officer, being 100% of tax on the addition to income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 when in fact the addition is made on conjecture and no specific evidence has been filed to the effect that purchases are bogus /not genuine and very high pitched addition has been made exceeding double the profit margin which is erroneous. A.Y. 2011-12 5. Upholding the penalty levied by the learned Assessing officer, being 100% of tax on the addition to income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 when without giving proper opportunity when in fact the appellant could not reply as show cause notice for penalty was not received by the appellant.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, insert or interpolate club or rectify to all or any of the said grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.32,78,879/-. The assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of trading and dealership of Lubricating Oil and Greases under the trade name M/s. „Ganesh Minerals. An information was received from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken the bogus purchase entry in sum of Rs.86,25,759/- from the following three parties: - S. No. Name of the accommodation bill TIN Amount (in Rs.) provider 1 International Enterprises 27770240230V 10,65,001/- 2 Ronak Enterprises 27790692724V 34,57,126/- 3 Siddhivinayak Corporation 27180634908V 41,03,632/- Total 86,25,759/- Thereafter, the notice was given and after the reply of the assessee, 25% of the said purchase was added to the income of the assessee. The penalty proceeding was initiated. After the reply of the assessee, the penalty in sum A.Y. 2011-12 of Rs.3,50,000/- was levied. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 5. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the Revenue and perused the record. We noticed that the AO has levied the penalty on account of raising the addition on the bogus purchase. The income was estimated and addition was raised. No penalty is leviable when the income has been estimated. In this regard, we find support of the decision of Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P & H). We also find support of the decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT 2001 164 CTR 2009 (Guj) in which it is specifically held that the penalty is not leviable when the profit was estimated on estimation basis. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(Appeals) is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on the issue and delete the penalty. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/12/2021 (SHAMIM YAHYA) (AMARJIT SINGH) लेखध सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated : 16/12/2021 Vijay Pal Singh (Sr. PS)
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 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
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026