9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. With the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear both the appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First we shall take up ITA No. 573/PUN/2019. ITA No. 573/PUN/2019, (A.Y. 2011-12) 2. This appeal filed by the assessee against the confirmation of penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. The contention of Shri S.N. Puranik, the ld. AR is that the AO recorded satisfaction that the assessee filed inaccurate particulars relating to bogus purchases and initiated proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars. The AO imposed penalty for concealment of income which is not maintainable in view of decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon in Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra)] - wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/ permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. This is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been initiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground of which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, and it c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its books of accounts and also to explain as to why the said Hawala purchases should not be treated as bogus purchases. We note that it was categorically accepted that the said purchases were made through brokers in gray market and basing on which the AO added Rs. 18,97,900/- (Rs. 94,39,500/- at 20%). The CIT(A) held that the assessee is not able to substantiate the genuineness of alleged purchases, however restricted the said addition to 10% to arrive at such conclusion, the CIT(A) placed reliance on the order dated 28-04-2017 of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 795/PUN/2014 for assessment year 2010-11. Shri S.N. Puranik, the ld. AR did not controvert the same. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
