Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (7) TMI 1534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... asking by the AO, has furnished the necessary details like bills, vouchers, payment through banking channel and the bank statements etc.. Therefore, the facts are distinguishable to the case of N.K. Industries Ltd. [ 2016 (6) TMI 1139 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] decided wherein the purchases were found as bogus. We observe that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal by considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and taking a broader view for the ends of justice and litigation, restricted the addition to 20% of the disallowance in place of 15% as restricted by the then Ld. CIT (A) against 100% of the addition made by the AO, which also dents the levy of penalty. Therefore, on this reason itself, the penalty is un-sustainable. Comin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.R. For the Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR. ORDER PER : NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 29.02.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) for the A.Y. 2009-10. 2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 27.10.2014 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act ultimately made the additions of Rs. 1,44,31,006/- on account of disallowance qua bogus purchases treated as unexplained u/s 69C of the Act, the addition of Rs. 5,77,240/- @ 4% of the said alleg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... articulars of income. 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the levy of penalty before the Ld. Commissioner and mainly emphasized that the Assessee, during the course of quantum proceedings, has duly submitted the following documents in support of purchases made: 1. Purchase bills and purchase orders 2. Bank statements highlighting the debits 3. Stock statement mentioning the use of material from alleged dealers 4. Comparative gross profit chart 5. ledger accounts of the parties and their confirmation 6. delivery challans 7. Partywise details of purchases with name, bill number, date, amount with cheque number, cheque clearing date, check amount, name of bank 8. stock register showing item wise opening stock, inward/outward and closi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. We observe that before making addition qua alleged bogus purchases, the AO not only considered the returning back the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act to the alleged bogus dealers/suppliers but in fact also considered the information gathered from the Sales Tax Authorities and therefore treated the alleged purchases as bogus and unexplained u/s 69C of the Act. We further observe that the AO made the addition @ 100% on account of alleged bogus purchases, whereas the addition was reduced to 15% of the alleged bogus purchases by the Ld. Commissioner, which was further enhanced to 20% by the Hon ble Tribunal, which goes to show that there was no certainty qua addition made, on which the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rstand that how the charge of concealment of income is attracted in this case, whereas the penalty proceedings have been initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for both of the limbs i.e. concealment of income and filing of inaccurate particulars of income and resulted into imposing the penalty for both of the limbs. Concealment refers to deliberate act on the part of the Assessee whereas mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act or suppression or suggesting falls information. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (292 ITR 11) has clearly held that the both the limbs i.e. concealment of income and filing of inaccurate particulars of income carries the different connotation/meaning and cannot be used a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates