9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds of appeal before us: "Being aggrieved by the orders of the Income Tax Off icer - 271(2)(5) Mumbai, and learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) - 25, Mumbai this appeal petition is filed on the following amongst other grounds of appeal, which it is prayed may be considered without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act 1961 without appreciating that the notice initiating penalty under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was bad in law. 2. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding action of the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchases of Rs. 2,85,363/- claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned hawala party, viz. Arihant Enterprise, issued notice under Sec. 133(6) of the Act. However, the aforesaid notice remained unserved and was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks "left" or "not known". Also, the attempt on the part of the A.O to serve the aforesaid notice on the said supplier parties through his inspector was also of no avail as the party could not be traced at the address given by the assessee. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts the A.O directed the assessee to produce the aforementioned party and also to provide its latest address along with the details of goods purchased, copy of bills raised by the said party, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. During the course of hearing of the appeal as the assessee appellant had failed to put forth an appearance, therefore, we are constrained to proceed with and dispose off the appeal as per Rule 25 of the Appellate Tribune Rules, 1963, i.e after hearing the respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. Departmental Representative (for short "D.R‟) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the assessee had failed to substantiate its claim of having purchased the goods under consideration, the A.O, thus, had rightly imposed the penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c). 8. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact, the assessee could not even place on record the new address of the aforesaid supplier party. Also, as observed by the A.O, the assessee failed to establish to the satisfaction of the A.O that the material corresponding to the bogus purchases was actually used in the production activity. Be that as it may, it remains as a matter of fact that the A.O despite the aforesaid infirmities had not rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. 9. As observed by the A.O in his order passed under Sec.271(1)(c), dated 29.09.2016, the details filed by the assessee in his attempt to substantiate the genuineness of the impugned purchases were in the nature of secondary evidence, and the same not being primary evidence, thus, did not prove its cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
