9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not disputed by the assessing officer. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined with the decision of ld. CIT(A), therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - quantification of purchases sales and estimated addition to profit to the extent of ₹ 15% only - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that assessing officer has not confronted the assessee to produce the parties who were not found at the given addresses. The Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT had deleted the additions except sustaining the addition on estimated basis to the extent of ₹ 15%. Considering the facts and sustaining of additions on merely estimated basis, we observe that given circumstances it is not a fit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1602/Ahd/2018 2. The solitary ground of appeal filed by the assessee against the decision of ld. CIT(A) is in confirming the addition of ₹ 12,45,064/- on account of bogus liability u/s. 68 of the act. 3. The fact in brief is that assessment u/s. 143(3) of the act was passed on 28th May, 2014 for the year under consideration. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer noticed outstanding balance of sundry creditors as on 31st March, 2011 to the amount of ₹ 12,45,064/- in respect of which assessee has not furnished the relevant supporting detail. Therefore, the assessing officer has treated the same as bogus liability and added u/s. 68 of the act. 4. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 12,45,064/- being amount outstanding in name of three parties treating the same as bogus liability and added u/s. 68 of the act. It is undisputed fact that assessee has not made any purchases from the three parties shown in the head sundry creditors. The ld. counsel has demonstrated from the detail reflected in annexure-2 as per page no. 53 of the paper book that in respect of three sundry creditors there were having opening balance appeared in the account of the said party to the amount of ₹ 12,45,064/- which has been added by the assessing officer u/s. 68 of the act. It is also demonstrated by the ld. counsel that the outstanding sundry creditors were duly paid by account payee cheque on 28th October, 2011 and 17 October, 2011 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. ITA No. 1601/Ahad/2018 10. The assessee has filed appeal against the decision of ld. CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad in sustaining the penalty of ₹ 25,82,560/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act by the assessing officer. In this case, assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the act was made on 28th March, 2014 wherein the amount of ₹ 19,97,584/- outstanding in the name of nine parties were treated as bogus liability and the same was added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the act. Subsequently, the ld. CIT(A) has enhanced the addition to the amount of ₹ 77,68,002/- by including all the purchases made by the assessee during the year under consideration. Thereafter, the assessing officer has levied penalty u/s. 271(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght of above facts and circumstances, it observed that relevant detail and information about the purchases transactions was provided by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and assessing officer has incorrectly added the outstanding balance pertaining to sundry creditors in respect of nine parties u/s. 68 of the act on the ground that said parties were not found at given addresses which was subsequently enhanced by ld. CIT(A) by including the whole amount of purchases made by the assessee from these parties. It is noticed that assessing officer has not confronted the assessee to produce the parties who were not found at the given addresses. The Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT had deleted the additions except sustaining the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidence to reconcile differences, therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal of the assessee, therefore, the same stands dismissed. 18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 1180/Ahd/2018 19. The solitary ground of appeal is filed against the decision of ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty of ₹ 11,05,146/- levied by the assessing officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. 20. Since similar issue on identical fact we have adjudicated in favour of the assessee in this order vide ITA No. 1181/Ahd/2018 as elaborated above in this order, therefore, on similar ground and reason, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 22. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
