TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty also, it could by no means be construed that penalty was to be treated at par with the quantum additions. As is discernible from Clause 10(e) of the aforesaid CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 (as amended on 20.08.2018), the same applied only to additions which were based on information received from external sources. As noticed since the levy of penalty by no means could be construed as an addition within the meaning of Clause 10(e) of the aforesaid circular, therefore, we do not find any merit in the contentions advanced by the ld. D.R that the aforesaid exception carved out in the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 (supra) would also take within its realm a penalty imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) w.r.t the additions made by the A.O towards bogus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he genuineness of the transactions with impugned parties which the assessee failed and the assessee even failed to produce these parties before the Assessing Officer when called for as the notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act 1961 issued to such parties were received un-served and it is clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961. 2. Though the tax effect is below the prescribed limit, further appeal to ITAT is authorized as the case falls in exception as per Board Circular No 3/2018 with regard to addition/ disallowance made on account of information received from external agencies. 3. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be set aside and the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returned income of the assessee. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the A.O carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who vide his order dated 27.02.2017 sustained the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the value of the impugned purchases. 5. After culmination of the assessment proceedings the A.O called upon the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) may not be imposed as regards the addition/disallowance of the impugned purchase of ₹ 14,37,072/-. In reply, the assessee tried to impress upon the A.O that no penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) was liable to be imposed in its hands. However, the A.O not finding favour with the submissions of the assessee imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities the quantum of penalty under dispute is ₹ 55,507/- which is substantially below the threshold limit of ₹ 50 lac as had been provided in the latest CBDT circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, that contemplates the tax effect for filing of the appeals by the revenue. It is the claim of the ld. D.R that as the present appeal is covered by the exception carved out in clause 10(e) of the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 (as amended on 20.08.2018) thus, the appeal filed by the revenue is maintainable. 11. Before adverting any further it would be relevant to cull out the exception carved out in clause 10(e) of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 (as amended on 20.08.2018), which reads as under: 10. Adverse judgments relating to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... realm a penalty imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) w.r.t the additions made by the A.O towards bogus purchases on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, i.e an external agency. Accordingly, finding favour with the claim of the ld. A.R that the appeal of the revenue is covered by the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, the same, thus, in our considered view is not maintainable. Accordingly, we herein dismiss the appeal of the revenue, for the reason, that the tax effect therein involved is lower than that contemplated in the aforesaid CBDT Circular fixing the monetary limit of filing of appeals by the revenue before the Tribunal. 12. Resultantly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
