9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Shri M. S. Samantha M. ( Sr. DR) Revenue by : None ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT; 1. This appeal by revenue is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai [for short the ld. CIT(A)] in Appeal No. 598/15-16 dated 03.12.2018. Assessment was framed by ACIT Circle-3, Thane for the Assessment Year 2011-12 under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ) vide order dated 26.02.2015. The penalty under dispute was levied by DCIT, Circle-3, Thane under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s 247 of the Act vide order dated 31.08.2015. 2. The only issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstruction No. 3/2018 dated 11/07/2018 amended vide letter dated 20.08.2018 as per para 10(e) of the said circular. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) may be vacated that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 3. We have heard ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (DR) and gone through the facts and circumstances of this case. We noted that that the assessee is engaged in the business of sales and services of computers, mobile and accessories. The Income Tax Department received information from Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee has received a bogus purchase bill from Shakti Trading Company amounting to ₹ 8,77,500/-, which is bogus and the Assessing Officer added the entire amount under section 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard for A.Y. 2011-12. 7. We noted that this is a case of bogus purchases and bogus purchases were disallowed by Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings only on the premise that assessee is unable to produce the actual delivery/physical delivery of goods but it is a fact that the Assessing Officer has not doubted the sales made by assessee or even the payments were made by account payee cheques. Once this is a fact that once sales are not doubted, the entire purchases cannot be considered as bogus and that is also a presumption. Mere on presumption, penalty cannot be levied. Hence, we confirmed the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty and dismissed this appeal of revenue. 8. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
