9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik dated 02.11.2016 in quantum appeal and ITA No.204/PUN/2017 by Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik dated 04.11.2016 deleting penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is engaged in manufacturing of electrical equipments and is a Government Contractor. Information was received from Sales Tax Department that the assessee is engaged in bogus purchases. Survey action u/s.133A of the Act was carried out in the case of assessee on 22.08.2013. During the course of survey, statement of Shri Sagar Shankar Panaskar, brother of assessee was recorded o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, alter, clarify/amend and or withdraw any grounds of appeal as and when the occasion demands." 4. Shri Pankaj Garg representing the Department submitted that the assessee had failed to furnish supporting documents to show trail of goods. The assessee neither furnished invoices, octroi receipts and transport receipts nor the assessee was maintaining stock register. Further, the assessee could not prove genuineness of the suppliers. No confirmations were filed by the assessee from suppliers of goods. In the statement recorded u/s.131 of the Act, Shri Sagar Shankar Panaskar, brother of assessee admitted that the genuineness of the purchases could not be proved. Thus, the Assessing Officer rightly made addition of entire bogus purchases. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee. The total turnover of the assessee during impugned period is Rs. 1,15,71,310/-, whereas, the alleged bogus purchases disallowed by the Assessing Officer are Rs. 85,98,876/-. Without purchases, there cannot be sales. The books of account of the assessee have also not been rejected by the Assessing Officer before making addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases. Undoubtedly, the primary onus to prove genuineness of purchase transactions is on the assessee and he should have in first place furnished cogent evidences to prove the genuineness of the purchases and suppliers. No confirmations were filed by the assessee from suppliers. We also observe that at the time of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases made from the hawala dealers. No supporting documents substantiating genuineness of purchases were furnished by assessee. In view of assessee's admission no further verification was carried out by the Assessing Officer. Whereas, in the instant case, the assessee had not given any such concession. We find that the decision cited is distinguishable on facts and hence, does not support the case of Revenue. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.203/PUN/2017 is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid. ITA No.204/PUN/2017 Assessment Year 2010-11 9. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting penalty of Rs. 26,57,053/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order whereby penalty proceedings were initiated reads as under: "Further, for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT Act is separately initiated." A perusal of the order levying penalty dated 22.07.2015 reveals that though penalty was initiated for 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income', the Assessing Officer invoked the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act while levying penalty i.e. 'concealment of income'. The relevant extract of the penalty order reads as under: "5. Considering the tax bracket and the amount of concealment, it is clear that the assessee has intentionally concealed the taxable income which was detected by the department. If the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the penalty has been initiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground of which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, and it cannot be on a fresh ground of which the Assessee has no notice." [Emphasized by us ] 14. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 15. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.204/PUN/2017 is dismissed. 16. To sum up, appeal of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
