9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the extent of 75% of the alleged bogus purchases and the remaining addition is only at ₹ 5,41,025. We are of the considered view that the alleged penalty of ₹ 6,68,710/- also needs to be scaled down to 25% of the impugned penalty. We therefore in the given facts and circumstances of the case direct the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty at ₹ 1,67,178/- (being 25% of the pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified. 2. Ld.CIT(A) has not considered the facts given by the appellant before him. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has not given the final opportunity of being heard before passing the appeal order on 06.06.2017. The order was passed on basis of submission given by the appellant previously. The Hon'ble I.T.A.T has given order on 15.05.2017 in which relief is granted to appellant. Hence penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partly succeeded as the penalty levied @150% was scaled down to 100% of tax evaded thereby confirming the penalty at ₹ 6,68,710/-. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the appeal before the Tribunal against the quantum addition confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) and the assessee got substantial relief as the Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 while adjudicating the issue of quantum addition for bogus purchases of ₹ 21,64,000/- in the case of assessee partly allowed the assessee s appeal by sustaining the addition only to the extent of ₹ 5,41,025/- being 25% of the alleged bogus purchases at ₹ 21,64,100/- by following the judgment in the case of Vijay Trading Company Vs ITO (2016) 76 Taxmann.com 366 (Gujarat) hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
