PRATIKSHA J. KUDTARKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 26 (2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2674/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 October 2020AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated additions. Therefore, the penalty levied for both assessment years was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for bogus purchases. Additions were made based on estimated gross profit for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied on additions made on an estimated basis for bogus purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma
For Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Hearing: 14/10/2020Pronounced: 14/10/2020

These two appeals by the assessee for Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11, are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) for the respective assessment years, confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Both the impugned orders are of even date, i.e. 27.11.2018. Since, the facts in both the appeals are similar and the grounds of appeal are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are disposed off vide this common order.

2. Ms. Neha Sharma representing the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of CNC pipe bending machines used in automobile industry. During the assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years, the addition was made on account of bogus purchases by estimating gross profit at 25% in Assessment Year 2009-10 and 12.5% in Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition made on account of bogus purchases and levied penalty of Rs.70,424/- in Assessment Year 2009-10 and Rs.1,25,874/- in Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) assailing levy of penalty. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without appreciating the facts. The ld. Assessee Representative (in short ‘AR’) submitted that it is a well-settled legal proposition that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied on estimated additions. The ld. AR prayed for deleting the penalty.

3. On the other hand, Shri Uodal Raj Singh representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeals of assessee.

4.

We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings for the respective impugned assessment years has made estimated addition on account of bogus purchases. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for such additions and vide order dated 29.09.2015 for Assessment Year 2009-10 and vide order dated 28.07.2016 for Assessment Year 2010-11, levied penalty under Section 3 & 2674/Mum/2019 Ms. Pratiksha J. Kudtarkar 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is a well-settled legal position that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on estimated addition [Re. : CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, 360 ITR 580 (Raj.)]. We find merit in the submissions of ld. AR of assessee. Accordingly, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the impugned assessment years is deleted. The impugned orders are set-aside and the appeals of assessee are allowed.

5.

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday, the 14th day of October, 2020.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →