INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), MUMBAI vs. JAGJITSINGH NIRMALSINGH KHABERWAL, MUMBAI

Grievance of the appellant, in substance, is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs 81,486 imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

As learned representatives fairly agree, learned CI(A) has deleted the impugned additions by following various orders of the coordinate benches holding that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) will not hold good in law where alleged additions on account of bogus purchases has been only partly confirmed by the CIT(A), entirely based on estimation. Learned Departmental Representative accepts this factual position but relies upon the order of the Assessing Officer nevertheless. In view of the smallness of amount, and view of direct decisions of the coordinate benches in favour of the assessee on the same point, he does not Assessment year: 2011-12 Page 2 of 2 pursue the matter further beyond placing reliance, and somewhat bland reliance, on the stand of the Assessing Officer.

In view of the above positions, looking to the smallness of amount and looking to a large number of judicial precedents in favour of the assessee, on materially similar facts, we see no need to interfere in the matter. We approve the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962, by placing the list of pronouncements being placed on the notice board.