9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld have been validly imposed on the assessee. Restriction of the disallowance of entire purchases made by the A.O to 30% of the aggregate value of such purchases by the CIT(A), which thereafter was substituted by 10% by the Tribunal, speaks for itself that the disallowance sustained in the hands of the assessee is merely backed by a process of estimation and not based on any concrete evidence. No clinching material had been brought on record by the revenue which could disprove the authenticity of the purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned parties, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could have thus validly been imposed upon him. We thus not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the observations of the lower authorities therein vacate the penalty imposed by the A.O u/s 271(1)(c). - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5069/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 6-10-2020 - Shri Shamim Yahya , Accountant Member And Shri Ravish Sood , Judicial Member Appellant by : Shri Rahul Hakani , A. R Respondent by : Shri Uodal Raj Singh , D. R ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD , JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed to have made purchases aggregating to ₹ 23,93,611/- from the following 6 parties: Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. M/s Somnath International (AISPG1601K) ₹ 4,52,520/- 2. Jasmine Enterprises (ALXPM4040Q) ₹ 18,984/- 3. Chetna Enterprise (AAJPS8292B) ₹ 2,01,477/- 4. V.M. Udyog (AGKPC6868L) ₹ 3,62,780/- 5. Shraddha Trading Co. (AOTPM8042B) ₹ 8,82,030/- 6. Bhumi Sales Corporation (AAEPD7085N) ₹ 4,75,820/- Total ₹ 23,93,611/- In order to verify the genuineness and veracity of the aforesaid purchase transactions, the A.O directed the assessee to furnish certain details alongwith copies of purchase bills in respect of the impugned purcha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 11.07.2016, may not be imposed on him. As the reply filed by the assessee wherein he had tried to impress that no penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) was called for in his case did not find favour with the A.O, the assessee was therefore subjected to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of ₹ 2,15,424/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) before the CIT(A). Observing, that the Tribunal had restricted the addition in the case of the assessee to the extent of 10% of the impugned bogus purchases, the CIT(A) while principally agreeing with the A.O that the assessee was liable to be saddled with penalty under Sec.271(1)(c), however, directed him to re-compute the penalty in order to bring the same in terms with the scaling down of the disallowance pursuant to the order of the Tribunal. 7. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the addition was made by the A.O only on an estimate basis and not on the basis of any concrete documentary evidence which would disprove the genuineness of the purchases in question. It was averred by the ld. A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x (A). The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rightly taken a view that no penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income as with the hypothesis that it does. If the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, i.e. it is not accepted but circumstances do not lead to the reasonable and positive inference that the assessee‟s case is false. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. The appeal is without any substance. The same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. We are of the considered view that the assessee in the case before us had failed to substantiate the genuineness and veracity of the purchases claimed by him to have been made from the aforementioned parties by placing on record the documentary evidence as was called for by the A.O. But then, as it is a matter of fact borne from the records that the assessee had evidenced the veracity of the impugned purchase transactions by furnishing certain documents viz. purchase bills, ledger accounts of parties, bank statements etc, the authenticity of which had nei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
