TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the unproved claim of purchases no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could have been validly imposed on the assessee. In fact, the restriction of the disallowance of entire purchases made by the CIT(A) to 12.5% of the aggregate value of such purchases speaks for itself that the disallowance sustained in the hands of the assessee is merely backed by a process of estimation and not based on any concrete evidence. As in the case before us no clinching material had been brought on record by the revenue which could disprove the authenticity of the purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned parties thus, no penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) could have validly been imposed upon him. We thus not being able to persuade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) had reduced addition on account of alleged bogus purchases at the rate 12.5%. The Income Tax Department has no positive concrete evidences of concealment. Merely on the basis of estimation of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied and same be deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) ₹ 83,358/-be deleted. 4. The assessee craves, leave to add, delete or modify any of the Ground of appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of trading in chemicals had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2009-10 on 26.09.2009, declaring a total income of ₹ 63,94,050/-. Original assessment was initially fram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchases, the A.O, vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 27.03.2014 assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 88,62,570/-. At the time of culminating the assessment the A.O also initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. Show cause‟ notice (SCN), dated 27.03.2014 was issued to the assessee therein calling upon him to explain as to why penalty under the aforesaid statutory provision may not be imposed on him. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the assessment order before the CIT(A). Insofar the addition made by the A.O towards bogus purchases was concerned, the CIT(A) observed that the A.O had while fra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition made towards the value of the impugned bogus purchases of ₹ 2,45,241/- i.e to the extent sustained by the CIT(A) may not be imposed on him. As the reply filed by the assessee did not find favour with the A.O therefore, he imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of ₹ 83,358/-, vide his order dated 15.03.2018. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) not finding favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee dismissed the appeal. 7. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rightly taken a view that no penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income as with the hypothesis that it does. If the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, i.e. it is not accepted but circumstances do not lead to the reasonable and positive inference that the assessee‟s case is false. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. The appeal is without any substance. The same is dismissed in limine with no or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim of the assessee of having made purchases from the aforementioned parties, therefore, merely on the basis of the unproved claim of purchases no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could have been validly imposed on the assessee. In fact, the restriction of the disallowance of entire purchases made by the CIT(A) to 12.5% of the aggregate value of such purchases speaks for itself that the disallowance sustained in the hands of the assessee is merely backed by a process of estimation and not based on any concrete evidence. Accordingly, as in the case before us no clinching material had been brought on record by the revenue which could disprove the authenticity of the purchases claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
