9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. The penalty imposed by CIT(A) was ₹ 28,68,970/-. When these facts were confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, he could not controvert the above factual findings. After hearing the rival contentions and going through the facts of the case, we are of the view that once the quantum is deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty levied by CIT(A) on enhanced income will not survive. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 181/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 7-5-2019 - Sri Mahavir Singh, JM And Sri Nk Pradhan, AM For the Appellant : Shri K Gopal Ms. Neha Paranjpe, AR For the Respondent : Shri Satischandra Rajore, DR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the I.T. Act, 1961 and accordingly, I impose minimum penalty of ₹ 28,68,975/- as I am satisfied that the appellant has deliberately concealed /furnished inaccurate particulars of its income 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-50, has failed in considering: i) That penalty proceedings initiated by his predecessor is void as in the order under section 250 enhancing the income by ₹ 95,63,253/-, it has been held that the appellant has deemed to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income of ₹ 95,63,253/-as per explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) and therefore penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) is initiated separ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of ₹ 95,63,253/-. According to the learned Counsel, the CIT(A) directed the AO to add the entire bogus purchases. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before ITAT and ITAT vide its order in ITA No. 4429/Mum/2017 for AY 2007-08 vide order dated 18.10.2017 deleted the enhancement of income made by CIT(A) and directed the AO to sustain the addition at the rate of 12.5% being GP of the Bogus purchases. For this Tribunal discuss the entire issue in Para 2 to 5 as under: - 2. I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in steel. The Revenue carried out survey operation u/s. 133A of the Act and it was noticed that the assessee has made bogus purchases from Siddhivinaya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made from Siddhivinayak Steel. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CIT(A) the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I heard the parties and perused the record. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has reconciled the purchases and sales and hence the AO had estimated the profit from the alleged bogus purchases at 12.50%. He submitted that the assessee had given sample of purchase invoices and the Ld CIT(A) has presumed that the assessee could not furnish copies of other invoices. He submitted that the Tax audit report contains quantity details, which has been collated from stock register. Hence non-production of stock register should not have been considered by Ld CIT(A) as an is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
