M/S Vision Research & Management Pvt. ... vs Department Of Income Tax

Dy.C.I.T.-6, Vs M/s Vision Research & Management Kanpur. Pvt. Ltd., 20, Chanakya Puri, New PAC Line, Kanpur. PAN:AABCV6877C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri O. N. Pathak, D. R. Respondent by Shri B. P. Yadav, C.A. Date of hearing 09/03/2015 Date of pronouncement 16/04/2015

ORDER

PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.

This is Revenue's appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dated 28/07/2014 for the assessment year 2009-2010.

2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under:

"1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs.16,82,070/- without appreciating the facts that books of accounts maintained by the assessee have been rejected by the Assessing Officer as the same do not reflect the true and correct picture of its income and estimated the net profit @10% on the basis of preceding years trading results.

2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty imposed 2

u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs.16,82,070/- without appreciating the facts that the CIT(A) vide his order dated 29.06.2012 has himself admitted and accepted that Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the books of accounts and sustained the quantum addition of Rs.56,06,898/-.

3. That the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), being erroneous, unjust and bad in law be vacated and the order of Assessing officer be restored."

3. Learned D. R. of the Revenue supported the penalty order whereas learned A. R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). He also submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07 and 2010-11 in I.T.A. No.657 & 658/Lkw/13 and copy of the Tribunal decision is available on pages 28 to 33 of the paper book.

4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the Tribunal order in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07 & 2010- 11, it was held that on ad hoc and estimated disallowance / addition, without bringing any clinching material on record suggesting concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. In the present year also, the assessee declared an income of Rs.46,92,262/- in respect of turnover of Rs.1342 lac and after considering the other income, total income declared was at Rs.1,32,14,535/-. Against the business income reported by the assessee at Rs.46,92,262/-, the Assessing Officer determined the business income at Rs.1,32,41,309/- by adopting net profit @10% of declared turnover of Rs.13,24,13,093/-. When the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), part relief was allowed by him and he upheld the addition of Rs.56.06 lac to the extent of disallowance of 5% of direct expenditure as against the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs.85,49,047/-. Hence, it is seen that in the present year also, the addition upheld by CIT(A) of 3

Rs.56.06 lac is on estimate basis only and therefore, the Tribunal decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 2006-07 and 2010-11 is squarely applicable and as per this Tribunal decision, penalty is not justified in respect of ad hoc disallowance without bringing any clinching material on record suggesting concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A).

5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)

Sd/. Sd/.

(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated:16/04/2015 *C.L.Singh

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1.The Appellant 2.The Respondent. 3.Concerned CIT 4.The CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar