| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 2343 (Jp-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Addition on the basis of estimate did not ipso facto supply evidence of concealment particularly when assessment was made on the inference flowing from inability of assessee to establish the case pleaded by it, accordingly, there was no justification for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars - Levy of penalty with reference to addition on estimated basis -
AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) with respect to addition made by AO by estimating gross profit @ 25% on estimated sales. Held: Degree of proof required for imposition of penalty is quite different from and is of a much higher order than that required for the purpose of making addition on an estimated basis. Addition on the basis of estimate did not ipso facto supply evidence of concealment.particularly when assessment was made on the inference flowing from inability of assessee to establish the case pleaded by it, accordingly, there was no justification for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
REFERRED : Shiv Lal Tak v. CIT (2002) 121 Taxman 99 (Raj-HC) and ITO v. Gurunanak Oil Agency (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 562 (Jod-Trib.) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1554 (Jod-Trib).
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2005-06 to 2010-11
IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|