9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintaining stock register which were also filed before the AO. No doubt the books of accounts were held not reflecting the correct state of affairs of the assessee's business but there has been no rejection of the same. Needless to say assessment proceedings are independent from penalty proceedings and imposition of the penalty depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case at hand, the addition made by the AO was rightly deleted in appeal to be replaced by a trading addition by applying an estimation of the GP rate of 27% instead of 16% as shown by the assessee. This naturally becomes an addition sustained on estimate basis. A fact or allegation based on estimation cannot be said to be correct only; it can also be incorr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh the genuineness of the parties from whom purchases were made. (b) Failed to produce the parties concerned. (c) Failed authenticate what was shown in the books of account (d) Failed to justify the trading results and books of accounts were not showing the results as free from blemishes and in such a situation it was difficult to agree with the contention of the assessee that since the payments were made through account payee cheque, it would be genuine (iii) That the appellant craves to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. The grounds taken by the assesssee in its Cross Objection read as under:- 1. The C.LT. (A), on the facts and circumstances of the case, was justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the case, was justified in deleting penalty, the Assessing officer had failed appreciate the conclusion of the CIT(A) that sufficient process of the evidences of transaction of the purchases made from various parties has been produced by the assessee which have not been denied by the Assessing Officer and have not been found to be false. 6. The CIT(A) on the facts and circumstances of the case was, justified in deleting the penalty. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax holding that since basis of initiation of penalty on account of bogus purchase has been deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and hence no penalty is leviable. 7. That the respondent craves the leave to add, modify, amend any of the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e group. In other words, the whole basis of making the addition by the AO has been set aside. Moreover, the work performed as reflected in the trading Account has been accepted by the AO which implies that work could be completed only after having taken into account the ostensible bogus purchases. Thus without the purchases, the work executed as well as the closing stock which has been accepted by the AO could not have been possible. These purchases are building materials and the assessee is stated maintaining stock register which were also filed before the AO. No doubt the books of accounts were held not reflecting the correct state of affairs of the assessee's business but there has been no rejection of the same. Needless to say asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
