9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief:- As it transpires from the facts on record, the assessee being a firm for the year under consideration had filed its return of income on 29th September 2011 declaring total income at Rs. 2,19,630. The return of income so filed by the assessee was initially processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of some information received from the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, the Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment under section 147 of the Act and issued notice dated 25th August 2015, under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer considering the submissions of the assessee completed the assessment under section 143(1) r/w section 147 of the Act on 9th December 2016, determining total income at Rs. 8,46,941, on accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. During the course of first appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the ad-hoc addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on suspicious purchases and against such ad-hoc addition, penalty cannot be imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the penalty by relying upon the Co-ordinate Bench decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Shri Ajay Loknath Lohia v/s ITO, ITA no.2998/Mum./2017, dated 5th October 2018, wherein the Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on account of alleged bogus purchases made from hawala dealers based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department. As a matter of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, the Hon'ble ]TAT Mumbai vide its order dated 02.05.2017 has deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1J(c) of the Act, where the addition u/s 69C of the Act was made on account of bogus purchases, on the ground that the assessee made a claim which was bonafide and the same was coupled with documentary evidences but the same remained inconclusive for want of confirmation from the suppliers as they could not be traced at given address. Further, the Hon'ble ITAT. Mumbai in the case of Ajay Loknath Lohia in ITA No. 2998/Mum/2017, vide its order dated 05.10.2018 has deleted the penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act, on the disallowance/addition made @25% on alleged bogus purchases made from hawala dealers based on the information receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on the basis of material available on record. 6. Considered the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. From the order of the authorities below, we find that the assessee has accepted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of Rs. 6,27,311 being 12.5% of bogus purchases worth Rs. 50,18,493. This addition led to levying of penalty of Rs. 2,55,000, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the assessee refrained to contest the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer before the first appellate authority, the Assessing Officer cannot impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
