TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee also prevented the revenue from knowing the real source of supply and whereabouts of supplier of the alleged goods purchased, if any. In the circumstances, the appellate authorities were left with no option but to estimate the plausible overstatement of expenditure on purchases and thereby understatement of profits. The undeniable fact of bogus purchase entered in the books of accounts and thereby vitiating the taxable income by the assessee was found as a matter of fact after threadbare enquiry. In these circumstances, the ratio of the aforesaid decisions are not applicable at all. As a consequence, we find no merit whatsoever in the appeal of the assessee. Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed. - I.T.A. No.2324/Ahd/2014 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid amount of ₹ 1.28 crores was made to the returned income. 3.1. For coming to such conclusion, the AO noted certain peculiar facts as follows. The AO noted that from an enquiry report of the DDIT (Investigation), it was revealed that Ravish R.Patel Prop of M/s.R.R.Patel Trading Corporation had issued bogus bills to the assessee-company. The Proprietor RR Patel was examined on oath wherein he confessed to have issued bogus bills to American Steel Pvt.Ltd. as well as sister ITA concern of the assessee i.e. American Steel Corporation. In the crossexamination by the assessee also, he reiterated the fact ofissue of bogus bills to the assessee and others. On the strength of the statement of Proprietor and cross-examination thereof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of 20% i.e. ₹ 25,76,072/- in the second appeal. The AO consequently imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the aforesaid amount of ₹ 25,76,072/- being 20% of the bogus purchase recorded as finally confirmed on an estimate basis. 4. The CIT(A) confirmed the aforesaid penalty action of the AO. 5. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the aforesaid order of the CIT(A) whereby the penalty on the amount of ₹ 25,76,072/- quantified as concealed income on estimated basis was confirmed. The penalty thereon determined at ₹ 8,70,000/- is subject matter of controversy. 6. The Ld.AR for the assessee Ms.Urvashi Shodhan vehemently contended that the penalty has been erroneously imposed and confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that bogus purchases have been found as a matter of fact. It was submitted that the records make it apparent that assessee had subverted facts and recorded bogus purchases in its books of accounts which fact was endorsed by the ITAT in the appellate proceedings. The additions on this account was ultimately confirmed by the Tribunal albeit partly on the ground that purpose did take place in view of corresponding sales. The Ld.DR submitted that in the wake of speaking facts narrating the deception and design of the assessee after elaborate enquiry, there can be no reason to take a different view in the matter of imposition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscernible. The only matter for consideration is extent of quantification of understatement of income. The ITAT as final fact finding authority has lent objectivity to such estimations. Thus, quarrel about quantum of estimated undisclosed income also does not survive any more. In these circumstances, we do not see any rational ground for granting latitude to the assessee in the matter of relief pleaded. The assessee has referred to certain case-laws as noted above, where a view has been taken that estimated addition does not call for imposition of penalty. However, as noted in elaboration, the assessee in the instant case stands on a very different footing on facts. The undeniable fact of bogus purchase entered in the books of accounts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
