9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after referred to as "the Act"] for the A.Y. 2010-11, wherein the penalty levied u/s. 271(c) of the Act upon the assessee was deleted. 2. The facts in brief as culled out from the orders of the lower authorities are that the assessee is an individual filed its original return of income on 30.09.2010, declaring an income of Rs. 3,69,700/-. The assessee is in the business of trading in iron & steel under the name and style of M/s S. S. Traders. The case was re-opened u/s. 147 on account of information received by the Sales Tax Department, State of Maharashtra regarding certain persons providing bogus entries from bogus purchase bills to the tax payers. The assessment order was passed adding 25% of the total sales value amounting of Rs. 2,39, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of such purchases by production of such parties before the Assessing Officer and the assessee failed to discharge his onus" The ITO 26(2)(1), Mumbai. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty merely because the addition was confirmed on estimated basis, though the estimation was necessitated because the books of account were proved false as purchases from bogus parties were debited therein". 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter or add a new ground which may be necessary." 3. We have heard the Ld. DR on behalf of the department and Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee. It was argued o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbai, (ITA No. 1396/Mum/2017, dated 23.11.2017). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that in the aforesaid case involving identical facts, the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of the estimated profit element pertaining to the bogus purchases made by the assessee was deleted by the Tribunal. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the Id. A.R that the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the penalty imposed by the AO under Sec. 271(1)(c) could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated." 5. As is evident from para 5.6 of the Ld. AO's order, the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the additions of @25% of non-verifiable purchases debited to the trading account, this shows that that Ld. CIT(A) while confirming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
