Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 1632 - AT - Income TaxBogus purchases - statement was recorded u/s.133A of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted making various bogus purchases at the different assessment years - GP estimation - HELD THAT:- AR showed the copy of affidavit and statement of facts before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein they have reiterated the statement made during the course of survey on the ground that those were not voluntarily made. Rather, they have made those statements in compulsion and pressure from Department. However, we do not find any evidence placed on record to suggest this fact. That even, the movement of goods was not demonstrated by the assessee conclusively. There are no evidences like Government records, payment of octroi duty receipts, road challans or documents with stamp by govt. authority. Nothing has been placed on record regarding movement of goods purchased. Therefore, it is clear that bogus purchases were made. Appreciating the similar set of facts and circumstances in the present case of the assessee as compared to M/S. CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD [2017 (6) TMI 514 - ITAT PUNE] we hold addition @10% of the alleged hawala purchases, over and above the GP shown by the assessee for the year. We therefore, set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and hold as aforesaid. Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - bogus purchases HELD THAT:- AO has not brought out any cogent specific reason for imposing penalty. The reason of the Assessing Officer is on assumption. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be levied on assumption. There has to be something more which can justify such levy of penalty. Here, we have already decided that there were bogus purchases and relying on our decision in the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we have arrived at findings that addition @10% of the alleged hawala purchases, over and above the GP shown by the assessee should be done by the Assessing Officer. Any penal action is not warranted in the case of assessee. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] has held that all omissions cannot warranty the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee field revised return offering the additional income to tax immediately after the statement on oath and has not waited till the completion of proceedings or otherwise. Penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) is not justified - Decided in favour of assessee.
|