9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. Balaganesh, AM For the Appellant : Shri T.S. Khalsa, DR For the Respondent : Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These appeals of Revenue are arising out of the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-37, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-37/IT-27/ITO-25(3)(4)/2018-09, CIT(A)- 37/IT-28/ITO-25(3)(4)/2018-09, CIT(A)-37/IT-29/ITO-25(3)(4), 2018-19 dated 14.06.2019. The re-assessments for all the Assessment Years were framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) vide even dated 21.03.2014. The penalties for all the Assessment Years were levied by ITO Ward 25(3)(4), Mumbai vide order dated 28.03.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oath before the Sales Tax Department that purchases made by the assessee were without supplying the goods, hence the penalty levied on the quantum addition for the year under consideration stands justified. 4. The Brief facts are that the assessee has field the return of income for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12 declaring total income of ₹ 2,39,620, ₹5,81,540/- and ₹7,88,842/- which were assessed at ₹53,35,660/- ₹ 2,93,11,510 and ₹3,97,22170/- respectively. The Assessing Officer made total disallowance for bogus purchases at the rate of 100% of the bogus purchases. Aggrieved preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who partly confirmed the appeal by reducing the disallowance at the rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned addition was made by the AO only because of lack of evidence to establish the purchase. The addition has been made in this case merely on account of the assessee failure to establish the identity of the supplier. As such considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, in entirety, and the well-settled position of law arising out of the decisions cited above, I am of the opinion that the disputed amount cannot be considered as assessee's concealed income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(1 )(c). Accordingly, the impugned order of the AO levying the penalty is cancelled and this ground is allowed. 5. However, the Hon ble ITAT, Mumbai reduced the addition to the extent of 4.61%, 5.82% and 2% for the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected and trading addition is sustained by estimating net profit, it cannot be presumed that the assessee has concealed income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(1)(c). It is observed that the impugned addition was made by the Assessing Officer only because of lack of evidence to establish the purchase. The addition has been made in this case merely on account of the assessee s failure to establish the identity of the supplier. As such considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, in entirety, and the well- settled position of law arising out of the decisions cited above, I am of the opinion that the disputed amount cannot be considered as assessee s concealed income so as to attract the provisions of Section 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
