2016 (7) TMI 1365

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me penalty has been deleted by another Division Bench by order [2013 (7) TMI 1084 - ITAT AHMEDABAD]. While doing so, the Division Bench has taken note of the fact that income was assessed on estimate basis and this estimation varied from forum to forum. The views so expressed by the Division Bench bind this SMC Bench. Respectfully following the esteemed views of the Division Bench in assessee’s ow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion Bench of this Tribunal has restricted the quantum addition to the 20% of the total alleged purchases. She further submits that so far as the Assessment Year 2005-06 is concerned, which is admittedly on the materially similar facts, another Division Bench vide order dated 26.07.2013 has deleted the related penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is pointed out that when the penalty in respect of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. I find that, as ld. Counsel for the assessee rightly points out, materially identical addition in respect of bogus purchases was confirmed by the Division Bench; however, so far as penalty in respect of the same is concerned, the same penalty has been deleted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X