9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [ 2022 (7) TMI 119 - ITAT SURAT] .Thus, following the similar principle, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act will not survive. Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oks of accounts and exhaustive documentary evidences to justify the genuineness of disputed purchase had been filed on record; The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that in the present case, assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 09/03/2015. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, made addition on account of alleged bogus purchases shown from Pravin Kumar Jain Group. The assessing officer made disallowances of aggregate purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 09/03/2015, if the notice was issue for concealing of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income, thus, the notice is itself invalid as has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Md. Farhan 125 Taxman 253 (Bom). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee is liable to succeed on factual as well as on legal issues. 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submit that the case of assessing officer / department right from the beginning is that the assessee has shown bogus purchases and thus, furnished inaccurate particulars of income ultimately the stand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019 vide ITA No. 2932 and 3277/Ahd/2016 wherein the addition was restricted to 5% of the bogus purchases/disputed purchases of Rs. 8.78 crores thereby restricting the addition to the extent of 43,90,000/-. We find that before the appeal of the assessee could be decided the Assessing Officer levied penalty vide order dated 20/03/2018 in levying penalty of Rs. 2.24 crores being 100% of tax sought to be evaded, on the addition/ disallowances restricted by ld CIT(A). However, we find that against the order of ld. CIT(A) in quantum assessment, the addition was restricted to 5% of the purchases shown from Pravin Kumar Jain and his group thereby restricting the addition to the extent of Rs. 43,90,000/-. 6. It is admitted position that ultimately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
