TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition was accepted by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that, when the addition is sustained on estimation/ adhoc basis, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied. We find that the LdCIT(A) relied on the Coordinate Bench of Hon ble tribunal decisions and passed a reasoned order in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Ld CIT(A) and upheld the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue. - ITA Nos. 5400 And 5410/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2020 - Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR For the Respondent : None ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-existent vendors by means of relevant supporting documents related to movement and delivery of goods, stock register, etc., to arrive at disallowance at 12.5% of the purchases from the non-existent vendors. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the law correctly that once the purchases are unverifiable / not genuine / bogus, the same should have been disallowed in entirety, particularly in view of the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 242 of 2003 dated 20.06.2016 in the case of N.K proteins Ltd., against which the SLP was dismissed by the Hon ble Apex Court. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend alt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the assessee has failed to comply with directions, therefore A.O. made 100% addition of bogus purchasesand determined total income of ₹ 1,62,64,820/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 25.03.2015. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal and submissions of the assessee and finding of the A.O and relied on the judicial decisions referred at para 7.1 to 7.3 of the order and restricted the disallowance @12.5% of bogus purchases relying on the assessee s own case for the A.Y 2011-12 referred at para 7.4 to 7.5 of the order which is read as under and partly allowed the assessee s appeal: 7.4 With regard to the appellant s relian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of 12.5% has been held to be meeting the end's of justice in various decisions of the ITAT Mumbai in such cases. Accordingly, we hold that in the present case the disallowance should be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchase. The counsel of the assessee fairly agreed to the above proposition. 7.5 In view of facts stated above, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has made purchases of ₹ 40,70,920/- in the open market which were subsequently sold and has obtained bills from the Hawala operators. It is not known at what price the appellant actually made the purchases from third parties. Further the assessee could not produce parties during the assessment and appellate proceedings and has paid sales tax on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Tribunal in assessee s own case and partly allowed the appeal. The Ld. DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) with any cogent material or new information and relied on the order of the Assessing officer. We do not find infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and upheld the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue. 7. In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 5410/Mum/2018, A.Y 2011-12 8. The A.O has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, and the facts in brief were discussed in above paragraphs and explanations were furnished. But, the penalty was levied and order was passed on 31.03.2017.In the quantum appeal against the addition made by the A.O, the CIT(A) has estimated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
