Asst CIT 32 (1), Mumbai Shri. Hanvant Singh Jabbar Singh Ranawat, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“H” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND
HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

I.T.A. No.6882/Mum/2019
Assessment Year: 2012-13)

ACIT-32(1)
R.No.702, 7t h Floor
Kautilya Bhawan
BKC, Bandra (E)
Mumbai – 400 051
PAN/GIR No. ADXPR-7563-F
Appellant)

Vs.

Hanvant Singh Jabbar Singh Ranawat
C/204, Arihant Apartments
Sodawala Lane, Govind Nagar
Borivali (West)
Mumbai – 400 092
Respondent)

Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri Gurbinder Singh-Ld. DR

Date of Hearing : 21/04/2021
Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2021

O R D E R

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2012-13 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 05/08/2019 which has deleted the penalty of Rs.14,302/- u/s 271(1)(c) as levied by Ld. AO vide penalty order dated 11/09/2015. Though none appeared for assessee, however, the material on record was sufficient enough for disposal of the appeal.

2. The assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 27/03/2015 wherein it was saddled with estimated addition of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases of Rs.3.70 Lacs. The addition thus made worked out to be Rs.46,286/-. Consequently, impugned penalty of Rs.14,302/- was levied by Ld. AO against the assessee vide order dated 11/09/2015. Upon further appeal challenging levy of penalty, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the same, inter-alia, by observing that penalty on estimated additions could not be sustained. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

3. In our considered opinion, the impugned order would not require any interference on our part for two reasons. Firstly, the additions were merely estimated additions for unproved purchases and therefore, no case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income could be made out against the assessee. Secondly, the revenue’s appeal is not maintainable in terms of latest low tax effect  CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 [F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-TTJ(Pt.) which prescribes minimum threshold limit of Rs.50 Lacs for revenue to agitate the matter further before Tribunal. It is settled legal position that quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are independent and distinct proceedings and confirmation of additions may not be the sole ground for confirming the penalty. Extending the same logic, unless specific exception is provided in the circular with respect to penalty also, it could not be construed that the penalty was to be treated at par with quantum additions. The clause 10(e) specifically applies only to additions which are based on information received from external sources. The levy of penalty, by no stretch of imagination, could be construed as addition as envisaged by clause 10(e). Therefore, the  submissions made by Ld. DR could not be honored and we decline to accept the same.

4. Resultantly, the appeal stand dismissed.

Order pronounced on 3rd May, 2021.

Sd/-                               Sd/-
 (Mahavir Singh)         (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal)
Vice President            Accountant Member

Mumbai; Dated : 03.05.2021
Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese

Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3.The CIT(A)
4. CIT– concerned
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File

BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt.Registrar)
 ITAT, Mumbai.