IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Shri S. S. Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member [Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad] ITA No. 571 Rjt 2014 Assessment Year 2009-10 Shri Rashik R. Kapuria, ITO, Plot No. 3527, Road no. W ard 2(2), G , GIDC, Phase-III, Vs Jamnagar Dared, Jamnagar (Respondent) PAN: AOBPK0092H (Appellant) Revenue by: Smt. Usha N. Shrote, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Chetan L. Agrawal, A.R. Date of hearing : 03-10-2016 Date of pronouncement : 21-10-2016 ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, arises from order of CIT(A), Jamnagar dated 06-08-2014 in appeal no. CIT(A) Jam 4 13-04 515, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961; in short Act . I.T.A No. 571 Rjt 2014 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 2 Shri Rashik R. Kapuria, vs. ITO 2. assessee has raised following ground of appeal:- Hon. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in confirming penalty u s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 13,600 - imposed by assessing officer. 3. assessee in this case filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 149541 -. Assessee is individual and deals in manufacturing of brass parts. During course of assessment, Assessing Officer has noticed that assessee has not disclosed detail of SB account no. 020501515797 with ICICI Jamnagar and deposited on various dates from 01-04-2008 to 31st March, 2009. In this connection, assessee has explained that he has already accounted ICICI bank account and transaction on various dates were duly accounted during year under consideration. However, due to oversight closing balance of above bank account has been wrongly grouped under head account respectively. Assessing Officer has not accepted submission of assessee and stated that it appeared that assessee has done business of brass parts and transaction in said account is of trading activities done by them out of books. Assessing Officer stated that transaction of Rs. 27,25,195 - will be treated as undisclosed sale done out of books of account on which GP ratio is to be adopted. Assessing Officer has stated that during year disclosed turnover of Rs. 11,68,162 - @ 19.28% was reported by assessee. Accordingly, by applying this GP ratio on total turnover of Rs. 27,25,195 -. Assessing Officer has worked unaccounted income I.T.A No. 571 Rjt 2014 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 3 Shri Rashik R. Kapuria, vs. ITO of Rs. 5,25,417 - and added to total income of assessee on which Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceeding u s. 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act. assessee has appealed before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) against order of Assessing Officer for making said addition. Before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A), assessee has stated that bank account maintained with ICICI bank was duly reflected in books of accounts and Assessing Officer has incorrectly made addition. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has reduced addition to Rs. 1,36,430 -. Thereafter, Assessing Officer has imposed penalty u s. 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act on concealment of Rs. 1,36,430 - to extent of Rs. 13,597 - for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within meaning of section 271(1)(c) of Act. assessee has filed further appeal against levy of penalty by Assessing Officer before Commissioner of Income Tax(A). Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has dismissed appeal of assessee by stating that such transaction is nothing but concealed income. 4. Before us, ld. authorized representative stated that there is no concealment of income and assessee has disclosed transaction reported in bank account and this addition is just made on estimated basis without any concealment done by assessee. On other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative relied on order of Commissioner of Income Tax(A) . I.T.A No. 571 Rjt 2014 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 4 Shri Rashik R. Kapuria, vs. ITO 5. After hearing both parties and on perusal of material available on record, we find that decision of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) is not correct as it could not be established that assessee has concealed transaction reported in bank account and addition was just made on estimated basis. In order to attract clause (c) of section 271(1) of Act, it is necessary that there must be concealment by assessee of particulars of his income or if he furnishes inaccurate particulars of such income. It is evident from facts reported that addition was made on agreed basis by estimating net profit at Rs. 5,25,417 - and this addition was reduced to Rs. 1,36,430 - by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A). We find that Assessing Officer has not established that there is concealment of particulars of income by assessee or he has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, we delete penalty of Rs. 13,597 - sustained by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A). 6. In end, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 21-10-2016 Sd - Sd - (S.S. GODARA) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 21 10 2016 ak Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee I.T.A No. 571 Rjt 2014 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 5 Shri Rashik R. Kapuria, vs. ITO 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order, Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Rashik R. Kapuria v. ITO, Ward 2(2), Jamnagar