Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 192 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bogus purchases - Held that:- The assessee has been consistently asking for the statement of said Sh. Jagdish C Mundra as well asking for cross examination of said Sh. Jagdish C Mundra which is consistently denied by Revenue. There is no such voluntary disclosure made by the assessee company w.r.t. bogus purchases during the course of search u/s 132(1), while the same was made by another Group concern namely Balaji Telefilms Limited. Thus, in our considered view, the penalty as levied by the Revenue u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act in the instant case cannot be sustained as the explanation offered by the assessee keeping in view peculiar facts of the case as also keeping in view smallness of the amount vis-a-vis returned loss is a bonafide explanation. Thus keeping in view peculiar facts of the case as enumerated above and ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT), we are inclined to accept the explanation offered by the assessee to be bona-fide and we hereby order for the deletion of the penalty as levied by the AO which was later confirmed by learned CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.
|