9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.03.2015 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the amount sought to be evaded amounting to Rs. 95,63,253/-. For this assessee has raised the following three grounds: - "1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai, erred in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 28,68,975/- by wrongly holding: I) that since the enhancement was made after making show cause to the appellant and pointing out all defects as well as incorrect particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for concealment, the specific act of concealment has not been brought to notice. III) Various judgments submitted on this issue. 3. Without prejudice to above, the appellant submits that the Learned CIT(A) has failed to consider that the enhancement has been wrongly made as his predecessor passing the order for enhancement has not considered the facts of the matter in its correct perspective by ignoring the quantitative details and other evidences filed to prove and lead the authenticity of purchases." 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the originally the AO made disallowance at the rate of 12.5% being gross profit of the bogus purchases. Accordingly, the AO estimated the gross profit of the bogus purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee furnished copy of tax audit report wherein, details of quantity were given. However, the assessee could not produce stock register before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) also noticed that the assessee has furnished copy of only two purchase invoices. The learned CIT(A) noticed that the quantity details given in tax audit report did not contain details relating to "MS pipe", which item was purchased from M/s. Siddhivinayak Steel. Even though the assessee submitted that the details relating to MS pipe have been included under the heading ""Seamless Pipes", the learned CIT(A) did not accept the same. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) took the view that the profit of 12.5% estimated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to sustain addition to the extent of 12.50% of the value of purchases." 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, now the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the Tribunal has deleted the addition whatever was enhanced by CIT(A). Hence, the penalty levied by CIT(A) on enhancement vide order dated 27.07.2017 will not survive as the quantum addition has been deleted by the Tribunal. The penalty imposed by CIT(A) was Rs. 28,68,970/-. When these facts were confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, he could not controvert the above factual findings. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and going through the facts of the case, we are of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
