9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, being resident corporate assessee, was assessed u/s 143(3) at Rs. 66,25,790/- vide Assessing Officer [AO] order dated 04/03/2013 after addition, inter-alia, of Rs. 38,17,544/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C as against returned income of Rs. 25,13,750/- e-filed by the assessee on 26/09/2010. The assessee was engaged in the business of crane hiring and maintenance and reflected turnover of Rs. 5.04 crores. During Assessment proceedings, pursuant to information obtained from Sales Tax department, certain repair & maintenance items purchased by assessee from five suppliers was treated as bogus and added u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure as the assessee could not produce confirmation from alleged bogus supplier, This led to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded in the books of account and the payments were made through banking channels from accounts which were duly reflected in the books of accounts. Further, the assessee accepted the quantum additions and did not contest the same any further in view of the fact that it could not obtain confirmatory letters from the alleged suppliers as they could not be traced at the relevant time. Nevertheless, the assessee was in possession of purchase invoices, delivery challans, ledger extracts thereof and all the payments were through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee voluntarily offered the quantum additions by filing revised computation of income during quantum proceedings which was in good faith, to buy peace and to avoid any further litig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, the Ld. DR pointed that the assessee's conduct proved the point that the purchases in dispute were bogus and the assessee, on being scrutinized by the revenue, accepted the same and revised the computation of income despite being having the possession of purchase documents. Therefore, the assessee's contention that the addition was offered voluntarily, to buy peace of mind and to avoid vexed litigation holds no strength. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record including cited case laws. So far as the legal grounds are concerned, a perusal of quantum order reveals that the penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and finally the same was levied on the same ground. We find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed by the Apex court in CIT Vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows [supra] confirmed the decision of Hon'ble High court, which in turn, relied upon the judgment rendered in CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [359 ITR 565]. The decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High court in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [supra] also placed the reliance on this judgment. After perusing the ratio of the judgment rendered in CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [supra], we find that the assessee's appeal was allowed by Hon'ble High court after considering the multiple factors and not solely on the basis of defect in notice u/s 274. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the penalty could not be deleted merely on the basis of defect pointed by the Ld. AR in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
