TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on estimation. We find that the assessee had furnished all the details of purchases as well as the income accrued was shown in the return of income. Even the payments made were by way of issuing cheques which were not considered by the Assessing Officer. Merely because the assessee has claimed the expenditure which was not acceptable to the Revenue that by itself does not mean that the assessee has concealed its particulars of income. With these observations, we hold that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has properly held that the addition made on account of disallowance of a percentage of expenditure as bogus automatically cannot justify the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 5014/Mum./20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer re opened the assessments under section 147 of the Act and the notice dated 10th March 2014 under section 148 of the Act. The assessee, in response to such notices, furnished details of eight parties from whom the assessee had purchased material worth ₹ 11,82,092. The details are as follows: Sl.no. Name of Party Purchase Amount 1. Balaji Trading ₹ 43,867 2. Parshva Co. ₹ 66,356 3. Deepali Enterprises ₹ 2,01,130 4. Siddhivinayak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 11,82,092 and accordingly made disallowance of ₹ 2,06,866 which was added to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee tried to evade taxes through producing bogus purchase bills thereby concealed particulars of its actual income, therefore, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of ₹ 63,920, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee accepted the addition to the extent of 17.5% i.e., ₹ 2,06,866, made by the Assessing Officer on account of non genuine purchases and chose not to appeal for such addition. However, the assessee filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the penalty of ₹ 63,920, im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, [2013] 35 taxmann.com 20) (Kar.); (iii) Earthmoving Equipment Service Corp. v/s DCIT, ITA no. 6617/Mum./ 2014 (Mum.); (iv) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT, [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC); (v) ETCO Profiles Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.5351/Mum./ 2021 (Mum.) and (vi) CIT v/s Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty consequent upon the disallowance made on account of non genuine purchases made by the assessee. He submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance so made by the Assessing Officer, it does not mean the assessee has concealed inaccurate particulars of income which is resulted in imposition of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has failed to meet the conditions of imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence, the penalty levied, in our opinion, is not sustainable in the case when the income enhanced based on estimation. We find that the assessee had furnished all the details of purchases as well as the income accrued was shown in the return of income. Even the payments made were by way of issuing cheques which were not considered by the Assessing Officer. Merely because the assessee has claimed the expenditure which was not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
