ACIT - CIRCLE- 6(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. COLO COLOR PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM)

(A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd., 2. Briefly stated the facts are that, assessee firm engaged in the business of “operating photo studio and trading in photographic material” filed return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring income of ₹.4,32,530/- for the A.Y. 2011-12. Assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and re-assessment was completed on 29.08.2016 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act determining the income at 12,32,570/-. While completing the reassessment the Assessing Officer treated purchases of ₹.59,26,206/- made from various dealers as mentioned in the Assessment Order as non-genuine for the A.Y. 2011-12 on the basis of the information received from Sales Tax Department, Mumbai that assessee has received accommodation entries from the various dealers without making any purchases but made purchases only in gray market. The Assessing Officer treated such purchases from the parties as non-genuine as the assessee could not produce the parties and also could not establish the movement of goods. However, the Assessing Officer estimated the profit element from non-genuine purchases at 12.5% and brought to tax an amount of ₹.7,40,779/- out of purchases of ₹.59,26,206/-. The assessee accepted the estimation of profit element from non-genuine purchases made by the Assessing Officer and no further appeal has been preferred. Subsequently, Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty of ₹.2,75,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act stating that the assessee

(A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd., has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty since the disallowance was made by making estimation of Gross Profit on the purchases. Against this order of the Ld.CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before us.

(A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd., ITR 451] estimated the profit element in such purchases at 12.5% and by reducing the Gross Profit already declared by the assessee. In the circumstances, we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the profit element was determined by way of adhoc estimation. Coming to the interest, the assessee furnished complete details in the return of income and made a claim and simply because the claim is denied and cannot lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. No allegation by Assessing Officer that the assessee failed to disclose the particulars relating to its claim in the return of income. Thus we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.”

5. Similarly, in the case of DCIT v. Manohar Manak, Alloys Pvt. Ltd in dated 16.01.2017 the Coordinate Bench held as under: - “9. We have heard the rival parties and carefully considered material placed before us including the order of the authorities below. We find from the assessment order that the AO has made an addition of Rs.45,76,587/- being 5% on total purchases on estimated basis in order to bring the bogus purchases to tax on the basis of information received from the third party i.e. State Sales Tax Department and DDIT(Inv) V(I), Mumbai which was not challenged by the assessee before the FAA and attained finality. Thereafter the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not challenge the assessment order and accepted additions so made thereby accepting the concealment of income. We find from the record that the additions as made by the AO was a pure estimate and nothing concrete as to bogus purchases were brought on records by the AO by making any further enquiries or investigation. In our view the penalty cannot be imposed where the additions are made on estimate basis. The Tribunal has considered an identical issue in the case of Deepak Popatlal Gala, in ITA No. 5920/M/13 and vide order dated 27.3.2015, it has held as under:- “10. The next issue relates to disallowance made out of purchases and assessed u/s 69C of the Act. We heard the parties and perused the record. The total purchase expenditure claimed by the assessee during the year under (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd., consideration was Rs.7,36,27,555/-. The AO noticed that the Sales Tax Department of Government of Maharashtra has listed out names of certain dealers, who were alleged to have been providing accommodation entries without doing actual business. The AO noticed that the assessee made purchases to the tune of Rs.38.69 lakhs from two parties named M/s Umiya Sales Agency Pvt Ltd and M/s Mercury Enterprises, whose names found place in the list provided by the Sales Tax Department. The AO placed full reliance on the enquiries conducted by Sales Tax Department in respect of the parties, referred above. Accordingly, the AO took the view that the purchases to the tune of Rs.38.69 lakhs have to be treated as unexplained expenditure. Accordingly, he assessed the same u/s 69C of the Act.

(A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd., 11)(Jodh), wherein it has been held that where the AO has made addition merely on the basis of observations made by the Sales tax dept and has not conducted any independent enquiries for making the addition especially in a case where the assessee has discharged its primary onus of showing books of account, payment by way of account payee cheque and producing vouchers for sale of goods, such an addition could not be sustained. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order on this issue. “ We also find that in the following cases the Tribunal has taken similar view in some of the case that on the basis of third party evidence, addition made by the AO cannot be held as good law and deleted the addition which are as under: - a) Ramesh Kumar and Co V/s ACIT in (AY-2010-11) dated 28.11.2014; b) DCIT V/s Shri Rajeev G Kalathil in ITA No.6727/Mum/2012 (AY-2009-10) dated 20.8.2014; and c) Shri Ganpatraj A Sanghavi V/s ACIT in ITA No. 2826/Mum/2013 (AY-2009-10) dated 5.11.2014 10. In all the above said cases, the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal has held that the AO was not justified in making the addition on the basis of statements given by the third parties before the Sales Tax Department, without conducting any other investigation. In the instant case also, the assessing officer has made the impugned addition on the basis of statements given by the parties before the Sales tax department. Considering the facts as discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the ratio in the various decisions as above penalty cannot be sustained. It is also a settled legal position of law that penalty cannot be levied wherein the assessment is made on estimation basis. Accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.”

(A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd., 6. Further, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh v. CIT [258 ITR 85] held as under: - “3. On further appeal, the Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs.1,50,000. Hence, the income was finally assessed at Rs.1,50,000 against the declared income of Rs. 52,000. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee by invoking Section 271(1)(c) along with the Explanation 1(B) of the Act on the plea that he had concealed the particulars of his income. A show-cause notice was issued to him under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)'(c) of the Act. In reply thereto, the assessee pleaded that since no positive concealment had been detected by the Department and the addition was made in his income only on estimate basis, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed because the assessee's income on estimate basis keeping in view his household expenses as well as the statement of accretion to his assets during the year under consideration, was bona fide. The Assessing Officer did not accept the reply and found that since the assessee had not filed any fresh evidence in penalty proceedings to prove that there was no attempt on his part to conceal his income, he, by his order dated March 10, 1992, imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patiala, who allowed the same holding that there was indeed no positive evidence whatever to show that the appellant's income during the year in question was, in fact, more than the income returned by him and that estimated additions in the returned income do not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c)of the Act. The Revenue went up in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was allowed by order dated May 30, 2001. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed which raises the aforesaid question of law.

4. In order to attract Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by the assessee of the particulars of his income or if he furnishes inaccurate particulars of such income. What is to be seen is whether the assessee in the present case had concealed his income as held by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal. He had not maintained any accounts and he filed his return of income on estimate basis. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the estimate of the assessee and brought his income to tax by increasing it to Rs. 2,07,500. This, too, was on estimate basis. The Tribunal agreed that the income of the assessee had to be assessed on an estimate of the turnover but was of the view that the estimate as made by the Assessing Officer was highly excessive and it fixed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,50,000 for the year under appeal. It is, thus, clear that there was a difference of opinion as regards the estimate of the income of the (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd., assessee. Since the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal adopted different estimates in assessing the income of the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessee had "concealed the particulars of his income" so as to attract Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act. There is not even an iota of evidence on the record to show that the income of the assessee during the year under appeal was more than the income returned by him. Additions in his income were made, as already observed, on estimate basis and that by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. There has to be a positive act of concealment on his part and the onus to prove this is on the Department. We are also of the considered view that the Tribunal grossly erred in law in relying on Explanation 1(B) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to raise a presumption against the assessee. The assessee had justified his estimate of income on the basis of household expenditure and other investments made during the relevant period. It is not the case of the Revenue that he had, in fact, incurred expenditure in excess of what he had stated. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the explanation furnished by the assessee had not been substantiated or that he had failed to prove that such explanation was not bona fide.

(A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd., particulars of such income. Thus, we do not observe any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year. Grounds raised by the revenue are rejected.

Order pronounced on 31.07.2020 as per Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules by placing the pronouncement list in the notice board.