9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - assessee cannot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard we draw support from the decision of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa [ 1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] where in it was held that the authority may not levy the penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious. We set aside the order's of Ld. CIT-A and delete the levy of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 5859 & 5860/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2021 - Shamim Yahya, Member (A) And Pavankumar Gadale, Member (J) For the Respondents : Ajay Pratap Singh ORDER Per Shamim Yahya, ( AM ) These are appeals by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of raw meat for onward transportation to Bombay and export thereafter. The assessee was asked to submit the purchase bills and other supporting documents such as address, pan, name of the parties from whom the purchases were made before the undersigned for verification. In response to the same, the AR submitted a list of person from whom the purchases were made with signature and thumbs impression. A matching of the signature was performed to ascertain the genuineness of the parties, however, the same could not be done because of incompleteness of data submitted by the assessee. The AR expressed inability to prove the genuineness of the purchases or to produce the parties before the undersigned for verification. The AR has not discharged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny notice himself to the alleged bogus supplier. The assessing officer has not bothered to point of the specific deficiencies and the quantum of purchase vouchers involved in this regard. Upon the said 20% adhoc bogus purchase he has disallowed gross profit ratio of 3.89%. However the assessing officer did not doubt the sales. The learned CIT-A confirmed the addition. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. 7. As clear from the facts recorded above the disallowance has been made on an estimated basis on account of the non-production of suppliers before the assessing officer. The purchase vouchers were duly produced. No notice to the alleged bogus supplier has been issued by the Assessing Officer. In these backgrounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
