Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal, Holds Investigating Officer Cannot Create Evidence  ||  Supreme Court: NDPS Prosecution Cannot Be Quashed Solely Over Co-Accused’s Disclosure  ||  SC: Tax Classification Depends on Goods' Form at Sale, not their End Use  ||  Delhi High Court: No Material Showing Delhi Police Compromised the 2020 Riots Probe  ||  Madras HC Suggests Mandatory Attachment of Properties Suspected to Be Proceeds of Corruption  ||  P&H High Court: Demolition After Lawyer Flagged Corruption Appears Aimed at Silencing Him  ||  Calcutta High Court: Contempt Proceedings Cannot Be Used to Challenge Orders or Attack Judges  ||  Orissa High Court: Marriage Need Not Be Preserved When the Relationship Has Substantially Eroded  ||  SC: CIRP Can Continue Despite Fraudulent Insolvency Plea That Triggered It  ||  Delhi HC: Senior Citizen May Seek Eviction of Daughter-in-Law for Ill-Treatment    

DCIT vs. Shyam K Gyanchandani, Ulhasnagar - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (03 Feb 2023)

When the addition is on estimated basis, penalty cannot be levied on adhoc estimated income

MANU/IU/0088/2023

Direct Taxation

The Revenue has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). The revenue has raised the grounds of appeal that, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering that the penalty was levied in respect of the addition made on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra with regard to bogus purchase made by the assessee from dealers without supply of actual goods.

It is submitted that, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by not appreciating the fact that the assessee could not substantiate the genuineness of purchases from the said parties during assessment proceedings as well as penalty proceedings.

When the addition is on estimated basis, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act cannot be levied on such adhoc estimated income. The disallowance of purchases on ad-hoc basis does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the IT Act.

The Assessing officer has not doubted the sales and made disallowance of bogus purchases. Further the assessing officer made an addition based on the information received from Sales tax department, Maharashtra since the said information could not conclusively be proved. The Ld. DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) with any new cogent evidences or information to take different view. Accordingly, present Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Learned CIT(A) and upheld the same. The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Tags : PENALTY   LEVY   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved