9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of inaccurate particulars of income. We are of the considered view that the Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed justified in deleting the penalty, as there was no concealment of income on the part of the assessee have been proved by the Revenue and additions made on estimation by the AO do not call for initiation of penalty. Consequently, we uphold the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. - ITA no.6435/Mum./2019, ITA no.6436/Mum./2019 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2021 - Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Gurbinder Singh ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness of trading in plastic products. The Assessing Officer noticed from the Profit Loss Account of the proprietary concern M/s. Shah Packaging, that the assessee has debited purchases of ₹ 17,11,85,721. The assessee was called upon to file the details of purchases, TIN and name and address of the parties from whom purchases were made. In response, the assessee filed the details as sought by the Assessing Officer. Meanwhile, the Assessing Officer received information from the Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, regarding suspicious parties who are only providing accommodation entries without doing actual business. The Assessing Officer on going through the details submitted by the assessee found that there are two parties amon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. 7. The assessee carried the matter of addition on account of bogus purchase under section 69C of the Act before the first appellate authority. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has restricted the addition @ 5% of such purchases/accommodation entries. Consequently, The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of ₹ 31,211. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal for contesting imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty so imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by following the decisions of the Co ordinate Bench. The relevant observatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT, Mumbai, vide its order dated 02.05.2017 has deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act where the addition u/s 69C of the Act was made on account of bogus purchases, on the ground that the assessee made a claim which was bonafide and the same was coupled with documentary evidences but the same remained inconclusive for want of confirmation from the supplier as they could not be traced at given address. Further, the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Ajay Loknath Lohia in ITA No.2998/Mum/2017, vide its order dated 05.01.2018, has d3eleted the penhalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the disallowance/addition made @ 25% on alleged bogus purchases made from hawala dealers based on the information received from the Sales T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of the Co ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, wherein it was held that when addition is made on estimate basis, penalty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of this contention, following case laws are relied upon:- i) CIT v/s Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 280 (Allahabad HC); ii) ACIT v/s Vision Research Management (P) Ltd., [2015] 63 taxmann.com 8 (Lucknow) (Trib.); iii) Prem Chand v/s ACIT, [2014] 52 taxmann.com 95 (Chandigarh) (Trib.); iv) CIT v/s PHI Seeds India Ltd., [2008] 301 ITR 0013 (Del); and v) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 10. The learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any cogent material to prove otherwise warr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
