9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is brought on record. At the same time the assessee has also admitted that in these cases supplies are obtained from one vendor and invoices are obtained from other vendor but the material was purchased which was utilized/consumed for business wherein additions have either been deleted or [email protected]% was brought to tax on these alleged bogus purchases by appellate authorities. Thus the assessee deserves one more opportunity and the matter/issue needs to be restored to the file of the AO for de-novo determination of the issue of leviability of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee be allowed to raise all contentions both on merits and on law before the AO which are kept open, which shall be adjudicated de-novo by the AO on merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 3.14 crores. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(2), the A.O. had enquired from the assessee with respect to certain goods purchased from the four parties whose name and VAT/TIN numbers were matching with the list of suspicious dealers as published on VAT website by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The name of the said four parties whose names appeared in website of Maharashtra Sales Tax Website as suspicious dealers, are as under:- Name of the supplier Purchases during the year 1. Dhruv Sales Corporation ₹ 7,65,847/- 2. Nidhish Impex Pvt. Ltd. ₹ 10,24,145/- 3. Toral Enterprises ₹ 4,67,460/- 4. Tulsiani Trading Pvt. Ltd. ₹ 5,15,250/- ₹ 27,72,702/- The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. The AO observed that no supporting documents pertaining to the delivery of goods such as delivery challan, place of delivery, lorry receipt were submitted by the assessee and merely bills issued by the said party was submitted. Thus, the A.O. concluded that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income on account of addition made in the assessment order to the tune of ₹ 27,72,702/- on account of bogus purchases and the AO levied penalty of ₹ 8,56,765/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide penalty orders dated 30-09-2013. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 30-09-2013 passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c), the assessee filed first appeal with learned CIT(A) which stood dismissed by ld. CIT(A) and penalty order passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned CIT(A) relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles Processors (306 ITR 277) and Atul Mohan Bindal (317 ITR 1) to hold that penalty is civil liability and mens rea and willful concealment is not essential ingredients to be established before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The learned CIT(A) distinguished the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 92 DTR 111(Kar. HC) and relied upon decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt Kaushalya Devi(supra) . The ld. CIT(A) observed that it is an admitted fact by the assessee that the purchases have been certainly made , but that the bills were received from one vendor although th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 03-06-2016 passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed second appeal before the tribunal. 7. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal based upon the material available on record after hearing ld. D.R. 8. The ld. D.R. relied on the appellate order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the purchases amounting to ₹ 27,72,702/- made by the assessee were from persons who have deposed before the sales tax authorities that they have indulged only in issuing bogus accommodation bills and have not delivered any material. 9. We have heard ld. D.R. and also perused the material available on record . We have observed that the assesse is engaged in the business of builder and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment for these alleged bogus purchases through account payee cheques. The said four parties have deposed before Maharashtra Sales tax Authorities that the said parties were merely issuing bogus accommodation bills without supplying any material and were alleged hawala operators. The said information was obtained by the AO from web site of Maharashtra Sales Tax department. It is pertinent to mention here that no independent enquiry has been made by the A.O. with these parties as is emerging from records. In-fact the assessee also did not discharge its primary onus as it did not supply addresses of these four parties to the AO and could not rebut the incriminating information with the AO as detailed above by us. The A.O., had relied upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
