9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of addition made on estimated basis. We have also considered the other decision in the case of Bhuraram V. Choudhury [ 2024 (8) TMI 79 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein after following the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Jatin Enterprise [ 2024 (3) TMI 1073 - ITAT MUMBAI] on the proposition that penalty levied in the case of assessee on estimated addition is not sustainable. No error in the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the impugned penalty levied on estimated basis in the case of the assessee. Therefore, all the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. - Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member And Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. DR ORDER PER AMARJ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation received from the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai that assessee has obtained accommodation entries from various parties in the form of purchase bills amounting to Rs. 1,80,59,239/-. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued to the parties for calling information but same were returned back by the postal authority on the ground that the parties were not available at the given address. In view of this, assessee was asked to produce the parties and explain by the aforesaid purchases should not be disallowed. The assessee could not produce the purchase parties. Therefore, the assessing officer held that assessee has suppressed profits and disallowed 25% of the total purchases of Rs. 1,80,59,239/- which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has levied penalty on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 45,14,810/- @ 100% tax sought to be evaded to the amount of Rs. 13,50,147/-. However, we find that ld. CIT(A) has restricted the aforesaid addition to the extent of Rs. 10% of the bogus purchases as against 25% of the bogus purchases made by the assessing officer. The revenue has filed appeal before the ITAT in respect of the quantum addition of Rs. 45,14,810/- made by the assessing officer which was restricted to the extent of 10% of the bogus purchases. However the AO has levied penalty without considering the decision of ld. CIT(A) vide which the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases was estimated @ 10% as against 25% of the bogus purchases estimated by the assessing officer. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
