9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition made by the Assessing Officer was specific and assessee had concealed the income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Further the assessee's explanation is not bonafide. The case laws referred by the assessee are not squarely applicable. In this case, the addition was specific with reference to unverifiable purchases. Therefore, we reverse the order of the ld CIT(A). - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 735/JP/2012 - - - Dated:- 5-6-2015 - R. P. Tolani, JM And T. R. Meena, AM, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mrs Neena Jeph, JCIT For the Respondent : Shri H M Singhvi, CA ORDER Per T. R. Meena, AM. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 01/06/2012 passed by the learned CIT(A)-I, Jaipur for A.Y. 2005-06 The effective grounds of appeal are as under:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) is justified in :- 1. Deleting the penalty of ₹ 4,10,923/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) when CIT(A) has confirmed the additions made on account of unverifiable purchases amounting to ₹ 4,96,970/- in Unit-I and ₹ 62,600/- in Unit-II. 2. Deleting the penalty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce M/s G.R. Enterprises, M/s Jodhpur Gems, M/s Nisha Exports, M/s Pragya Gems, M/s Sapna Gems and M/s Welcome Gems vide ordersheet entry dated 01/11/2007. The assessee was not able to produce these parties. Summons were issued to these parties but summons were returned back by the postal authority with remark either left or not known . In case of M/s Abhay International, M/s Girish Diam. M/s Raj Shree Gems, M/s Creative Gems and M/s S.P. Jewellers, summons were issued, which were also returned back by the postal authority with the remark either left or not known . After detailed discussion made by the Assessing Officer regarding investigation in case of bogus purchases made by the assessee from page 3 to 28, the Assessing Officer applied 25% G.P. rate on unverifiable purchases at ₹ 1,79,62,706/- and addition in Unit-I was made by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 41,14,423/- and in Unit-II at ₹ 1,26,490/- after giving deduction U/s 10B @ 90%. The penalty proceeding U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further observed on page 6 of his order that the fact of the rejection of books of accounts on account of unverified purchases coupled with fall in g.p. rate justified the trading addition. However, the fact remains that except unverified purchases no other defect was noticed by the A.O. No suppression/inflation of sales/purchases has come to the notice of the A.O. and, therefore, it will be more reasonable if trading addition is made in respect of unverified purchases only and not on the entire turnover. He observed that it may be presumed that the intention of the appellant in indulging into unverified purchases may be to reduce its profits. Thereafter the trading addition was reduced to ₹ 4,96,970/- and ₹ 62,600/- in Unit-I and Unit-II respectively. With these observations the first two grounds of appeal wee being decided partly in favour of the appellant. b) Similar matter came up for adjudication before the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench 'B', Jaipur in the case of Kamlesh Dangayach Prop. Green Fire wherein on same facts the Hon'ble ITAT has reversed the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty vide its order ITA No. 18 19/JP/2012 assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome apart from the past history of the case of the appellant. In fact the ld CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that no suppression/inflation of sales/purchases came to the notice of the A.O. and it can only be presumed that unverified purchases may have been made to reduce profits. A penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on presumptions regarding the intentions of the assessee. There has to be conclusive evidence regarding an act of commission or omission. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the A.O. for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of ₹ 4.10,923/- is deleted. 4. Now the revenue is in appeal before us. The learned D.R. vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and argued that the department has established that in gems and jewellery business in Jaipur, the parties are involved in accepting accommodation entry from various parties. In this case also, the total unverifiable purchases were ₹ 1,79,62,706/- on which the G.P. has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A). Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was specific and there was a definite concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
