RAJESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-25(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 10/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 April 2024AY 2008-09Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)3 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) is not leviable when additions are made on an estimated basis without specific evidence of furnishing inaccurate or concealed particulars of income. The estimation itself was reduced by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in construction as a labour contractor, declared income of Rs. 1,84,600. The Assessing Officer reopened the case, estimated profit at 12% due to lower declared profits, and levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable on additions made on an estimated basis without specific evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate
Hearing: 06/03/2024Pronounced: 01/04/2024

O R D E R

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”] dt. 06/12/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.

The sole issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer at Rs.3,48,398/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty has been levied on the addition made by the Assessing Officer on estimated basis. He further submitted that the ld. Assessing Officer estimated the profit @ 12% which was further scaled down by the ld. CIT(A) @10%. Further the Hon’ble Tribunal vide order dt. 04/10/2017 had directed to apply the rate of 8%. He submitted that in the light of the settled judicial

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 →