KAYCEE SHARES BROKING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 46, MUMBAI

“ 6.We have heard the rival submissions and produce the material before us. We find that case under consideration an action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out covering all the group entities including the assessee under consideration, that it was found group concerns were engaged in providing accommodation bills/hawala entries, that the assessee did not dispute the said fact, that the AO estimated the income from the accommodation entries @ 2% of the total transactions appearing in the bank accounts of the assessee, that the then FAA confirmed the quantum addition made by the AO, that in the case under consideration the Tribunal had held that commission income should be taken at the rate of 0.15% (ITA /6435/Mum/2012 – AY-2004-05 and other six appeals dt.6.1.16). The undisputed fact is that there is difference of opinion as to how much income should be estimated for the hawala entries-the AO estimated at a particular percentage, whereas the assessee had shown the income at a different percent. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the FAA in quantum addition may or may not be. But, levying penalty on the basis of an estimated addition could not be held to be justified. No authority is required to be cited that penalty and assessment proceedings are separate and distinct proceedings and the quantum proceedings should not result in automatic levy of concealment penalty. It is a case of estimation of income by the AO and the assessee. Here we would like to discuss two cases. One of them is Aero Traders P. LTD.(322 ITR 316).In that case the assessee-company had filed its return of income for the year 1997-98 on a notice u/s.148 of the Act, 1961declaring a loss of Rs. 83, 64, 468/-.The assessee had, in the return attached a note stating that it was impossible for it to substantiate its claim of loss by way of any evidence as the relevant records were seized and were with the police authorities. The AO after being unable to obtain copies of the seized documents, based his assessment order on the limited documents provided and rejected the book results declared by the assessee. He estimated the income of the assessee at Rs.61,00,000/-.He also initiated penalty proceedings separately. The FAA estimated the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,02,980/-.The Tribunal confirmed this order. The AO observed that the profit was estimated after rejection of books of account due to certain discrepancies and imposed a penalty on the assessee of Rs. 36,41,003/-, on the ground that it was a clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The FAA deleted the penalty holding that the addition made by the AO on the basis of estimated profit could not be a subject-matter of penalty for concealment of income. The Tribunal confirmed this order. On appeal,the AO dismissed the appeal and held that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal did not warrant interference as it was purely a finding of fact. In the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills(265 ITR 25)the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held as under: “When two views are possible and when no clear and definite inference can be drawn, in a penalty proceeding, penalty cannot be imposed…….In quantum proceedings, a particular provision might be attracted for addition to the income of the assessee. But when it comes to the question of imposition of penalty, then independent of the finding arrived at in the quantum proceedings, the authority has to find conclusively that the assessee owns the concealed amount.” Considering the fact that Tribunal has adopted a particular rate for estimating the income of the assessee for the year under consideration, we hold that the FAA was not justified in confirming the order passed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, reversing his order, we decide the effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee.”

5. The Ld. Departmental Representative has not disputed the factual matrix brought out by the Ld. Representative for the assessee, though he has defended the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is abundantly clear that modus operandi and the nature of income earned by the assessee, which has been subjected to the penal provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the instant case, are similar to those considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd., & Mr. Mukesh Choksi (supra). It is also abundantly clear that in the present case also the variation in the quantum of income assessable between assessee and the Revenue is on account of estimation only , an identical situation which has been considered in the aforesaid precedents. Therefore, following the aforesaid precedents, which have been rendered in similar circumstances, we hereby set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus on this aspect, assessee succeeds.