9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erves to be dismissed. - ITA No.5483/Mum./2019 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2022 - Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member And Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Shyam Agarwal For the Revenue : Shri Pitta Samuel ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 31/05/2019, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Mumbai, [ learned CIT(A) ], for the assessment year 2009 10, which in turn, arose from the order dated 15/03/2018, passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The present appeal has been listed for hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee has obtained bogus purchase amounting to Rs.16,99,816, from the parties whose names are appearing in the list of hawala dealers issued by the Sales Tax Department, State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, vide order dated 19/03/2015, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,12,477, being 12.5% of the total amount of Rs.16,99,816. 6. In further appeal, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee s appeal against the aforesaid order passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act. 7. Meanwhile, the penalty order dated 15/03/2018, was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein penalty of Rs.65,655, was levied on the basis that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case falls within the exception provided in Para 10(e) of Circular no.279/Misc. 142/2007 ITJ (Pt), dated 20/08/2018, and accordingly the present appeal is maintainable. 11. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the material available on record, we find that similar issue arose for consideration before the Co ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in appeal being ITA no.6053/Mum./2019, order dated 19/04/2021, in DCIT v/s Aluvind Architectural Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Tribunal, while deciding the issue in favour of the tax payer, observed as under: 3. We find at the outset, the Id AR argued that penalty that is in dispute before us, falls below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT in its Circular No.17/2019 dated 08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
