9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... average profit ratio. We find this combination in Nazar Impex P Ltd [ 2022 (7) TMI 119 - ITAT SURAT ] while considering the similar contentions of the parties on levy of penalty on similar estimated additions of similar purchase, deleted the similar penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by taking view that no penalty is leviable on estimated additions. While deleting the similar penalty, we followed the decision of jurisdictional High Court in Vijay Proteins Limited [ 2015 (1) TMI 828 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ]. No justification in levying the penalty by assessing officer on the additions of bogus purchase, which were ultimately restricted on estimation average of profit in the similar business. Thus, the assessee succeeds. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 09.03.2015. The ld AR for assessee by refereeing the contents of such notice submits that the assessing officer has not strike off the inappropriate portion of the notice, in specifying the charges either 'for concealment of income' or for 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income'. The ld AR for the assessee submits that he has also filed copy of assessment order to substantiate that no specific charge was mentioned even in the assessment order. 3. On merit of the case the ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessing officer while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) rws 147 dated 09.03.2015 made addition of Rs. 7.15 Crore on account of bogus purchases, which was 100% of the disputed purchases. On appeal befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ather it is a definite finding of facts. The finding of Tribunal cannot be said to be mere guess work, so the penalty on the additions restricted by Tribunal should be restricted. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and also deliberated on the various case laws relied by the ld AR for the assessee. We find that the assessing officer while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) rws 147 dated 09.03.2015 made addition of Rs. 7.15 Crore on account of bogus purchases, which was 100% of the disputed purchases. On appeal before ld CIT(A), the addition was restricted to 5% of entire turnover shown in the profit and loss account vide order dated 19.10.2016. On receipt of the order of CIT(A) dated 19.10.2016 in quant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the similar penalty, we followed the decision of jurisdictional High Court in Vijay Proteins Limited Vs CIT (ITR No. 319 of 1996). In view of the binding decision of jurisdictional High Court, which otherwise have followed in many cases, therefore, respectfully following the same, we do not find any justification in levying the penalty by assessing officer on the additions of bogus purchase, which were ultimately restricted on estimation average of profit in the similar business. Thus, the assessee succeeds on his secondary submission. Considering the fact that assessee succeeds on his secondary submission, therefore adjudication on other submissions has become academic. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
