S. 271(1)(c), S. 40(a)(ia), 153A, Court (Chennai)(Trib.), Penalty-Concealment-Addition on estimate basis-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified-Un accounted cash transaction-Levy of penalty is held to be justified-Disallowances u/s. 40(a)(ia)-Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 40(a)(ia), 153A]

 Section :- S. 271(1)(c), S. 40(a)(ia), 153A

Court (Chennai)(Trib.)

Penalty-Concealment-Addition on estimate basis-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified-Un accounted cash transaction-Levy of penalty is held to be justified-Disallowances u/s. 40(a)(ia)-Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 40(a)(ia), 153A]

Following the ratio in CIT v Smt. K. Meenakshi Kutty (2002) 258 ITR 494 (Mad.) (HC), the Tribunal held that addition on estmimate basis, does not attract the penalty. As regards. un accounted cash transaction the Levy of penalty is held to be justified. Similarly disallowances u/s 40(a) (ia) which the assessee failed to add while filing the return u/s 153A the levy of penalty is held to be justified. (AY. 2007-08)

S & P Foundations (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 186 DTR 122 (Chennai)(Trib.)