9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised in present appeal are allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty, as affirmed by the learned CIT(A). Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA no.1913/Mum./2021 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2022 - Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President And Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Mehul Shah For the Revenue : Shri Dinesh Chaurasia ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 06/09/2021 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce as to whether the Assessee has concealed the income or filed inaccurate particulars of income, and thereby no specific charge was created against the Assessee. 3. Your Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, and I or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before final disposal of appeal. 3. The only grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is against penalty of Rs. 28,476 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was upheld by the learned CIT(A). 4. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from record are: The assessee is a proprietorship entity and principally engaged in business as dealer/contractor in numerous PVC items on wholesale as well as retail basis. For the year under consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. During the course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative submitted that penalty in the present case has been levied on estimated addition, which was made relying on the report of Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, and thus, prayed for deletion of same. 7. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. From the documents available on record, it is evident that the impugned penalty, in the present case, was levied by the Assessing Officer on the basis of addition on account of alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee. The addition so made was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer, on the basis of the gross profit percentage, disallowed 12.5% out of the total purchases made from the four such hawala dealers. Admittedly, the addition was made on estimation basis. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Ruchi Developers vs. ITO (supra), and the Mumbai Bench in the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), has taken a view that when a assessee made a bona fide claim coupled with documentary evidence but the same remained inconclusive for want of confirmation from the suppliers and the Assessing Officer has not made further inquiry to verify the correctness of the confirmation, the imposition of penalty is not justifiable. Thus, respectfully following the decisions of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
