9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves two appeals filed by the revenue for Asst. Year 2003-04. The first appeal concerns the deletion of an addition made on account of disallowance of a specific amount in purchases. The second appeal pertains to the cancellation of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of a certain amount. Issue 1: Deletion of Addition in Purchases: The Revenue contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of a specific amount in purchases. The AO had disallowed 25% of the total purchases based on suspicion arising from statements of certain parties. However, the ld. CIT(A) found that the purchases were reflected in the closing stock and relied on a decision of the Hon. Gujarat High Court to support the deletion of the addition. The ld. DR argued that the purchases were bogus as the parties were only issuing bills without actual sales. On the other hand, the ld. AR contended that payments were made through cheques, parties were identifiable, and the department should have summoned the parties for cross-examination. The ld. AR also highlighted the improved trading results of the assessee. The Tribunal held that suspicion alone cannot justify an addition to total income. Once the assessee provided primary documents and evidence of payments, the onus shifted to the Revenue to disprove the genuineness of the purchases. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO should investigate and summon suspicious parties, and in the absence of direct evidence against the assessee, the purchases were deemed genuine. Issue 2: Cancellation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The second appeal concerned the cancellation of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the ld. CIT(A) in relation to the quantum addition. The AO had levied a penalty of 300% of the tax sought to be evaded, which was subsequently cancelled by the ld. CIT(A) due to the deletion of the addition in the quantum appeal. The Tribunal noted that penalty cannot be levied if the quantum addition is deleted, citing judgments that support this principle. Referring to a case from Hon. Punjab & Haryana High Court, it was established that the basis for penalty is the returned income, and if additions are deleted in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be imposed. Therefore, the Tribunal confirmed the cancellation of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) based on the deletion of the quantum addition. In conclusion, both appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the decisions of the ld. CIT(A) in both instances.
|
