9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 1405/MUM/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2020 - Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) And Shri Ram Lal Negi (JM) For the Assessee : Pramita Rathi (DR) For the Revenue : Shri Deepkant Prasad (DR) ORDER PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 28.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10 (for short the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2011-12, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 196 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) sustained the addition of 12.5% made by the AO. Under these circumstances, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have confirmed the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee supporting the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that since the Ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition of 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases on estimate basis, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act levied by the AO is not sustainable. The Ld. counsel further pointed out that the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are based on the various decisions of the ITAT, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) to interfere with. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antiate its purchases to some extent, the AO has acknowledged that the material stated to be purchased from the alleged bogus parties has been sold. Therefore, merely because the suppliers could not be traced at the given addresses could not automatically lead to a conclusion that there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the appellant. The appellant has offered an explanation, which could not be termed as not bona fide and the same was coupled with documentary evidence however the same remained inconclusive for want of confirmation from suppliers. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Unisynth Chemicals, Mumbai in 1T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the decisions of the coordinate Benches wherein the Tribunal has held that where the addition is made on estimate basis, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) cannot be imposed. Since, the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) are based on the decisions of the coordinate Benches rendered in the cases discussed by the Ld. CIT(A), we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT (A). We accordingly uphold the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the penalty levied under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012 is dismissed. Order pronounced on 29th October, 2020 under rule 34 (4) of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
