M/S. ZAMINDARA TIMBER TRADERS,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2964/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 June 2016AY 2007-084 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 since the addition was based on an estimated profit rate, which was further reduced by the tribunal, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be imposed. The penalty was ordered to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee purchased timber from abroad, but the sale bills did not specify the quality, leading to varying prices. The AO rejected the books of account due to improper stock register maintenance and estimated a GP rate of 4.9%, making an addition. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty imposed on this addition.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on an estimated basis, especially when the estimate itself was reduced by the tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-II : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Deepanshu Jain &, Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocates
For Respondent: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.06.2016Pronounced: 16.06.2016

per CBM. Since proper stock register was not maintained, the AO rejected the books of account by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. He applied GP rate of 4.9% and made an addition of Rs.35,40,410/-. No relief was allowed in the first appeal in quantum proceedings. Thereafter, the AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the income estimated by him. Such penalty was determined at Rs.10,62,120/-. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty by holding that the books of account were not properly maintained and the income was rightly estimated.

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the AO has simply rejected the books of account and made an estimate of profit rate of 4.9% to work out an addition of Rs.35.40 lac on which the instant penalty has been imposed. The tribunal, vide its order dated January, 2015, reduced the rate of profit from 4.90% to 3.53%. Apart from this estimate made by the AO, there is nothing to show that the assessee suppressed the income in any manner. This divulges that the addition has been made only on the basis of estimate made by the AO, which again stood reduced by the tribunal. It is a settled legal position that when income is estimated, then, there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., (2010)

1.

322 ITR 316 (Del), has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble P&H High Court in Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Subhash Trading Company, 221 ITR 110 (Guj). In view of the foregoing precedents including the one from the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, it is apparent that when the bedrock of instant penalty is the estimate of income, the same cannot be sustained. Overturning the 3 impugned order, I order for the deletion of penalty amounting to Rs.10,62,120/-.

4.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

The order pronounced in the open court on 16.06.2016.

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 →