Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1) , Jaipur Versus M/s. Bhansali Trading Corporation

2015 (9) TMI 997 - ITAT JAIPUR

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additions made on account of unverifiable purchases - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that:- The addition made by the Assessing Officer was specific on account of unverifiable purchases on which G.P. @ 25% was applied and added in the income. However, the same was reduced by the ld CIT(A) and applied different G.P. rate. However, the additions were specific. The assessee has not been able to produce these parties for verification and also summons were returned back to t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to those cases, therefore, we hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was specific and assessee had concealed the income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Further the assessee's explanation is not bonafide. The case laws referred by the assessee are not squarely applicable. In this case, the addition was specific with reference to unverifiable purchases. Therefore, we reverse the order of the ld CIT(A). - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 735/JP/2012 - Dated:- 5-6-2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/s 271(1)(c) when CIT(A) has confirmed the additions made on account of unverifiable purchases amounting to ₹ 4,96,970/- in Unit-I and ₹ 62,600/- in Unit-II. 2. Deleting the penalty of ₹ 4,10,923/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) ignoring explanation-I(B) of Section 271(1)(c). 2. Both the grounds are revolving around deleting the penalty of ₹ 4,10,923/- imposed by the Assessing Officer. The return of income in this case was filed on 31/10/2005 declaring income of ₹ 1,40,475/- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reas Unit-II was showing substantial profit. The ld Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings found that there were purchases from the following parties. UNIT-I a)M/s G.R. Enterprises ₹ 663240/- b)M/s Nisha Exports ₹ 50528/- c)M/s Jodhpur Gems ₹ 451839/- d)M/s Pragya Gems ₹ 494241/- e)M/s Sapna Gems ₹ 1308633/- f)M/s Welcome Gems ₹ 823331/- ₹ 3791812/- UNIT-II a)M/s Jodhpur Gems ₹ 116473/- b)M/s Nisha Exports ₹ 1060362/- c)M/s Sapna Gems &# .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd M/s Welcome Gems vide ordersheet entry dated 01/11/2007. The assessee was not able to produce these parties. Summons were issued to these parties but summons were returned back by the postal authority with remark either "left" or "not known". In case of M/s Abhay International, M/s Girish Diam. M/s Raj Shree Gems, M/s Creative Gems and M/s S.P. Jewellers, summons were issued, which were also returned back by the postal authority with the remark either "left" or & .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer before imposing penalty U/s 271(1)(c), he again had given reasonable opportunity of being heard, which was not availed by the assessee. The assessee challenged the quantum addition before the ld CIT(A) and finally addition for unit-1 was confirmed at ₹ 4,96,970/- and in unit-II ₹ 62,600/-. The Assessing Officer in absence of assessee's reply had decided the penalty ex parte by considering the follo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cealment and as per Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Basavappa & Sons 159 CTR 198 (Kar) lays down the principle in regard to bogus deductions. The assessee was found guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of ₹ 4,96,970/- in unit-I and ₹ 62,600/- in unit-II within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, he imposed 100% penalty of tax sought to be evaded at ₹ 4,10,923/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8/12/2009 has confirmed the findings of the ld CIT(A) in toto. The ld. CIT(A) vide his order ITA No. 686/07-08 dated 19/11/2008 has observed on page 5 that by producing the confirmation of the suppliers their PAN, RST/CST Nos. etc. the existence of the suppliers was proved on paper but the existence of the business could not be proved conclusively. Since the appellant failed to discharge its onus he confirmed the rejection of the books of accounts. He further observed on page 6 of his order that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ay be presumed that the intention of the appellant in indulging into unverified purchases may be to reduce its profits. Thereafter the trading addition was reduced to ₹ 4,96,970/- and ₹ 62,600/- in Unit-I and Unit-II respectively. With these observations the first two grounds of appeal wee being decided partly in favour of the appellant. b) Similar matter came up for adjudication before the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench 'B', Jaipur in the case of Kamlesh Dangayach Prop. Gree .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e assessment though initially made at 11% in view of the past history, stood finalized only at g.p. rate of 4.50%. The Hon'ble ITAT observed that what is paramount, and of essence, is the finding of the fact supporting the higher estimate. If there is none, it is only a matter of one person's estimate against the other. For both the years, the clear finding by the Tribunal for sustaining a higher g.p. rate is to plug a possible leakage of revenue on account of unverifiable purchases; the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g a disallowance of the claimed expenditure; the assessee having failed to prove their actual cost as incurred, cannot lead to the inference of a wrong claim, justifying the levy of penalty. "That is, the very fact of the Tribunal sustaining a higher g.p. rate only to plug a possible leakage of revenue on account of unverifiable purchases, proves the assessee's claim of absence of any charge of having not disclosed its correct income, and of having a plausible explanation in support of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es; there was no fact or evidence to support the higher estimate of income apart from the past history of the case of the appellant. In fact the ld CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that no suppression/inflation of sales/purchases came to the notice of the A.O. and it can only be presumed that unverified purchases may have been made to reduce profits. A penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on presumptions regarding the intentions of the assessee. There has to be conclusive evidence regarding .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unverifiable purchases were ₹ 1,79,62,706/- on which the G.P. has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A). Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was specific and there was a definite concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, she prayed reverse the order of the ld CIT(A). 5. At the outset, the ld AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed confirmation giving PAN number, sales tax number and payments were made by account payee c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CIT(A) applied G.P. rate of 21.36% as against 17.72% declared by the assessee. The ld Assessing Officer himself admitted in para No. 6 and para No. 3 of penalty order that addition was on estimate basis. The ld Assessing Officer accepted the opening stock, purchase, sale and closing stock. He had not pointed out that which purchases and sales had not been recorded in the books of account. Hence the assessee has neither concealed any income nor filed any wrong particulars of income. The various .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version