9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(1)(c) of the Act. Adopting the same logic, we are of the considered view that unless a specific exception is provided in the circular w.r.t penalty also, it could by no means be construed that penalty was to be treated at par with the quantum additions. discernible from Clause 10(e) of the aforesaid CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 (as amended on 20.08.2018), the same applies only to additions which were based on information received from external sources. As noticed by us hereinabove, since the levy of penalty by no means could be construed as an addition within the meaning of Clause 10(e) of the aforesaid circular, therefore, we do not find any merit in the contentions advanced by the ld. D.R that the aforesaid exception carved out in the CB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... witho appreciating the facts that the assessee has failed to substantiate the transactions claimed : its return of income thereby evaded taxes to that extent. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred is not appreciating the fact that the act of assessee clearly falls within the ambit of provisions c Explanation - 1 to secion 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee had failed to offer an explanatioi or which was found by the A.O to be false. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied by the A.O, u/s 271(1)(C) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of ₹ 7,58,217/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transactions, therefore, the A.O holding a conviction that the purchases were made by the assessee not from the aforementioned hawala parties, but at a discounted value from the open/grey market, thus, disallowd 12.5% of the impugned purchases of ₹ 1,75,19,573/- and made a consequential addition of ₹ 21,89,946/-. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 02.03.2015 assessed the income at ₹ 29,54,910/-. 4. After the culmination of the assessment proceedings, the A.O vide his order passed u/s 271(1)(c), dated 22.03.2018 imposed a penatly of ₹ 7,58,217/- qua the addition/disallowance made with respect to the impugned purchases. 5. Aggrieved, the assese assailed the order passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Circulars as had been relied upon by them to drive home their respective contentions. Admittedly, the assessee had been saddled with an addition/disallowance of the impugned bogus purchases of ₹ 21,89,946/- w.r.t the impugned purchases which were claimed by it to have been made from certain concerns. As is discernible from the assessment order, the aforesaid purchases were disallowed by the A.O, for the reason, that the assessee had failed to substantiate the authenticity of the purchase transactions to the satisfaction of the A.O. Backed by the aforesaid addition, the A.O had thereafter imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of ₹ 7,58,217/- on the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A) vacated the penalty imposed by the A.O u/s 271(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Adopting the same logic, we are of the considered view that unless a specific exception is provided in the circular w.r.t penalty also, it could by no means be construed that penalty was to be treated at par with the quantum additions. As is discernible from Clause 10(e) of the aforesaid CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 (as amended on 20.08.2018), the same applies only to additions which were based on information received from external sources. As noticed by us hereinabove, since the levy of penalty by no means could be construed as an addition within the meaning of Clause 10(e) of the aforesaid circular, therefore, we do not find any merit in the contentions advanced by the ld. D.R that the aforesaid exception carved out in the CBDT Circular No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
