9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed inaccurate particulars. Action of making addition on ad-hoc basis does not result into imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence cannot be termed as either concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided against revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnished by the assessee to establish the genuineness of purchases. Thus, ultimately, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire amount of ₹ 49,20,896, and added it to the income of the assessee. Since the assessee had indulged in bogus purchase, therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the income of ₹ 49,20,896, had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act for the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. Subsequently order under section 147 of the Act was passed on 13th January 2015 and the addition was made on the issue of bogus purchase. Consequently, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the assessee and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case deleted penalty levied by the Assessing Officer for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of bogus purchase. He was of the considered opinion that the additions on which penalty in dispute has been imposed is purely on estimation basis and the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to establish any mala fide intention of the assessee to evade tax in the return of income filed by the assessee. In view of certain judicial pronouncements, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 2,00,000 on account of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue being aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned Departmental Authorities has not brought any cogent material to prove otherwise warranting interference at the instance of the Revenue. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned 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 addition made on estimation by the Assessing Officer do not call for initiation of penalty. Consequently, we uphold the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. 7. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 6376/Mum./2019 - A.Y. 2009-10 M/s. Remi Process Plant & Machine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
