9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA NO.5720/MUM/2019 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2021 - Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'ble Judicial Member And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'ble Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Kirit Sanghavi For the Department : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 25, Mumbai [hereinafter in short Ld.CIT(A) ] dated 06.06.2019 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The only grievance of the Revenue in its appeal is that the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that quantum additions/disallowance were deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT vide order in ITA.No. 447/Mum/2018 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantial amount of sales made by the respondent-assessee was to government department i.e. Defence Research Development Laboratory, Hyderabad and such sales could not be bogus. Besides the books of account of the respondent-assessee have not been rejected. In view of the above, by order dated 30.04.2010 the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of ₹ 1.33 crores by holding that the purchases were not bogus. In further appeal the Hon ble Bombay High Court agreed with the reasons given by the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. In the instant case, the assessee has filed before the AO the ledger confirmations of purchases from parties who supplied more than ₹ 10,00,000/- during the year under consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he addition on the basis of which the penalty had been levied by the AO no longer survives, the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also becomes infructuous. This is also in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT [2004] 265 ITR 562 (SC). In this order the Hon'ble Court has observed as under: 'In order that a penalty under section 271(1)(iii) may be imposed, it has to be proved that the assessee has consciously made the concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Where the additions made in the assessment order, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
