TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Mumbai [hereinafter in short Ld.CIT(A) ] dated 03.12.2018 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: - 1. On the facts in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the alleged bogus purchases from the Hawala parties during the course of assessment as well as penalty proceedings. 2. On the facts in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by not appreciating the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determining the income at ₹.20,62,898/-. While completing the reassessment the Assessing Officer treated purchases of ₹.1,61,938/- made from M/s. Blue Nile Enterprises as non-genuine on the basis of the information received from Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that assessee has received accommodation entries from the party without making any purchases but made purchases only in gray market. The Assessing Officer treated such purchases from the party as non-genuine as the assessee could not produce the parties and also could not establish the movement of goods. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated entire purchases as non-genuine and brought to tax. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty u/s 271(1)(c) in all cases where the assessee refrains to file an appeal pursuant to an assessment order, with a hope to end the nightmare which began with selection of case for scrutiny by accepting the general additions in assessment order. Penalty is straightaway levied merely because no appeal been filed against the quantum order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar Mills (168 ITR 7051) held that there may be a hundred and one reasons for not protesting and agreeing to an addition but that does not follow to the conclusion that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (2013 35 taxmann.com 250) categori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature . 9. The levy of penalties is merely on disallowances of purchases and not finding of concealment of any particular or mala-fide intent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
