TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so when no enquiry whatsoever was made by the assessing officer himself in the assessment proceedings or in the penalty proceedings. We duly note that Hon’ble high courts and ITAT in a catena of cases have disapproved hundred percent addition in similar situation. Hence in our considered opinion in these facts of the assessee cannot be visited with the rigours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 5078/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2018 - Shri Shamim Yahya, AM And Shri Ram Lal Negi, JM Assessee by : Shri V. Justin-DR Respondent by : Shri K. Gopal Shri Tanmay Phadke ORDER Per Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member This appeal by the revenue is directed against order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06/2013 in which the amount of the 'bogus purchases' amounting to ₹ 63,71,559/- was offered for taxation. The AO passed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 30/09/2013 by adding the additional income surrendered by the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) were also initiated. Now the AO vide order dated 19/03/2014 has imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to ₹ 19,68,812/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. The AO issued notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) asking the assessee to explain why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed in its case. The assessee submitted before the AO that it was a civil contractor for railways constructing footbridges and currying out other civil work. A major part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he revised return filed by the assessee was filed after receiving notice u/s 148 was not a voluntary act on the part of the assessee. 6. Assessee made elaborate submissions before the learned CIT(A). Considering the assessee submissions learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding as under:- 9. I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions, the observations of the AO in the assessment order and the penalty order, the facts of the case and various decisions relied upon by the appellant. The appellant was beneficiary of certain Hawala transactions as per information received by the AO from the Sales Tax Authorities. After the AO issued notice u/s 148 to the appellant, the appellant revised its return of income by including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, as reproduced in preceding paragraphs, wherein the jurisdictional ITAT under similar circumstances has deleted the whole of the addition on account of such bogus purchases. In the appellant's case, the appellant itself surrendered the whole of the amount involved in such transactions by filing the revised return of income before furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income or any concealment of income had been established in its case on the basis of any inquiries or investigation. In the following cases, ITAT Mumbai has deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on more or less similar facts - a. Vipul Life Sciences Limited vs. DCIT in ITA No. 5948 and 5949/MUM/2014 - A survey was carried out in this case wherein assessee surrende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case u/s 271(1)(c), amounting to ₹ 19,68,812/- is directed to be deleted. 7. Against above order revenue is in appeal before us. 8. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that in this case assessing officer had received information from the sales tax Department that assessee was recipient of purchase bills from hawala traders. When notice for reopening was issued to the assessee, it revised its return of income. The returned income was accepted by the assessing officer and the income was assessed as filed in the revised return of income. The assessing officer did not make any enquiry of his own, either in the assessment proceeding on in the penalty proceeding regarding the actual nature of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
