9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee was unable to produce documentary evidences of transportation of goods. In identical facts Nokia India Pvt. Ltd [ 2012 (7) TMI 35 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] has already decided the issue that in the case of estimation of bogus purchases penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the cannot be sustained - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 108/Mum/2020 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2021 - Sri Mahavir Singh, VP And Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM For the Appellant : Shri Bharat Andhle, CIT DR For the Respondent : None ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These appeals of assessee are arising out of orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-44, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal Nos. CIT(A)-44/ITO-32(1)(4)/IT-26/18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of ₹ 89,341/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its Return of Income thereby making himself liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the AO received information from the investigation wing of the department, who in turn received information Maharashtra Sales Tax Department about the entry provider who are engaged in issuing accommodation bills to various beneficiaries but not supplying any material actually. As per the information, the assessee has also obtained bogus bills to the extent of ₹24,94,614/-received from M/s Raj Traders M/s Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases from the parties but only some profit element is not disclosed. The AO by levying the penalty has nowhere proved purchases are bogus because the assessee has filed explanation that it had made purchases from registered dealers and also produced bills and vouchers along with payment details and the payments are made through account payee cheques. Even, the assessee is able to produce stock tally and also the transactions which are recorded in the book of accounts but could not be verified as the assessee was unable to produce documentary evidences of transportation of goods. We noted that in identical facts Delhi High court has already decided the issue that in the case of estimation of bogus purchases penalty under section 271(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rket. This makes it clear that the assessee's claim has not been fully rejected. It is only on estimate that the Assessing Officer has disallowed 25 per cent. of the total claim. The Assessing Officer has not given any such finding that the assessee's claim was otherwise a false claim. The addition made by the Assessing Officer could at best be considered due in difference of opinion between the assessee and the Department but cannot be said to be a claim of such a nature which could be considered to be false and in respect of which the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is to be levied. We, therefore, uphold the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty on this item also. 8. Looking at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
