9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also payment made by account payee cheque. The assessee could not produce only the purchase party for examination of the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer levied penalty only on this count. We noted that this cannot be the reason for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) because the Assessing Officer is unable to prove the concealment of income in this case. Hence, we delete the penalty and allowed the appeal of assessee. - ITA No.7319/Mum/2017 ITA No.7320/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 22-1-2021 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KR. AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Ms. Dinkle Haria (AR) Revenue by : Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. DR) ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP; 1. This appeal by asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urer of analytical, environmental pollution monitoring instruments, Waste Water Treatment Applications, and services for monitoring and control of quality of gases, liquids, air and water. If, assessee made purchases from Om Mani Bhadra Sales Pvt. Ltd, he has to show that the material purchased were consumed from the manufacturing of the assessee. In case, the assessee proves that these items are consumed, no disallowance can be made. In term of the above, the matter is restored back to the file of the AO. 4. The ld. counsel for assessee stated once the Tribunal has set-aside the quantum orders of Assessing Officer making addition and CIT(A) confirming the addition of bogus purchases, the penalty levied by Assessing Officer and confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thane under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 31.08.2015. 9. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer on account of unapproved purchases. For this, the assessee has raised the first issue on jurisdiction that the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings for both the charges i.e. concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Assessee has challenged the issue on merits that on bogus purchases/unapproved purchases, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied, where sales are not doubted by the Assessing Officer. For this, assessee has raised follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egally possible on that ground alone. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of this case. We noted that the Assessing Officer while framing assessment has initiated the penalty proceedings on both the charges vide para-3.6 which reads as under: 3.6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the only fair conclusion that can be reached is that the assessee was a beneficiary of the accommodation bills issued by the party mentioned wherein, there wasn't actual delivery/physical delivery of goods. An accommodation bill is obtained for introducing unaccounted goods into the accounted stream. Therefore, the assessee's claim of purchases/expenses amounting to ₹ 5,75,536/- i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
