9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proved purchases. The penalties levied in all the years are as under: * AY: 2004-05 = 84,042/-, * AY: 2005-06 = 31,791/-, * AY: 2007-08 = 57,454/-, * AY: 2008-09 = 2,8,410/-, * AY: 2009-10 = 2,23,049/-. Since, the facts and issues in all the years are similar arising out of identical set of facts and the orders of the authorities bellow, therefore, same where heard together and have been disposed of by way of the consolidated order. In all the years the facts in briefs are that the Assessee firm deals in interlining cloth and trading in canvass. 2. Here in this case the assessments were for AY: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 were reopened u/s. 147/148 on the ground that survey action 143A was conducted in group concern of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... listed as "Hawala" dealers by the Sales Tax authorities. 2. Our clients have always categorically held that purchases from these parties are genuine and to prove and lead evidence of these being genuine purchases, they interalia furnished the following papers/documents. i) Details of Purchases and Sales giving full names and addresses of all the parties (which included purchases from the alleged bogus party also) along with the aggregate value of annual transactions. ii) Detailed inventory of Opening and Closing Stock. iii) Copies of delivery challans and purchase bills of the alleged bogus parties. iv) Ledger accounts of the alleged bogus party duly confirmed by them. v) Statement of payments made to the alleged bogus par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuineness of unaccounted income found in garb of cash sales in accounts and there were sufficient material on record to show that cash sales were made outside books. In the case before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (Supra) the issue related to admission of undisclosed income in the statement made in the course of search on which penalty u/s. 271AAB was levied. None of the judgments cited by the Ld. DR has any remote connection with the facts of case of the Assessee nor the principle nor ratio-decendi. Thus, the judgments do not help the case of the department. 8. After considering the relevant finding given the impugned order as well as the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee and submissions made by the DR, we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of suppression of gross profit on the purchases, but such estimated addition alone cannot be the basis for levy penalty u/s.271(1)(c). The penalty proceedings being separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings and the assessee can explain on the basis of same material facts on record that he has not concealed any particulars of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The explanation of the Assessee and all the evidences filed before the authorities below have neither been rebutted nor has been found to be incorrect or assessee has failed to substantiate the explanation. Thus, levy of penalty on such estimated gross profit cannot be sustained and accordingly, in all the years penalty levied by the AO and sustaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
