TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently, we find no cogent reason to disturb the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as well warrants us to interfere in the order of the first appellate authority either. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.5768/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) - - - Dated:- 24-3-2021 - SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Revenue by: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon Assessee by: None ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 26th June 2019, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) 44, Mumbai, deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... worth ₹ 50,18,4963. The Assessing Officer, during the penalty proceedings, observed that the certain information were received from the DIT (Inv.), Mumbai, and the Sales Tax Department that some of the persons from whom the assessee had made purchases were found to be non genuine from bogus concerns and they were engaged in the business of providing bills without actual delivery of goods. The Assessing Officer completed assessment proceedings making addition of ₹ 6,27,311 being 12.5% of such bogus purchases worth ₹ 50,18,493. Consequently, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also imposed levying penalty of ₹ 2,55,000. The assessee being aggrieved by the penalty order so passed by the Assessing Officer, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts claim, but the same was not accepted by the Ld. AO and where the addition has been made or sustained on estimation basis the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable. In support of its claim the appellant has placed reliance on various judicial precedents as detailed above. The contentions of the appellant have been considered carefully. The Ld. AO had made the addition on account of bogus purchases at ₹ 6,27,311/-, being 12.5% of total of such bogus/suspicious purchases at ₹ 50,18,493/-. The facts of the case suggest that the Ld. AO had made said addition on the ground that the appellant could not prove the purchases under consideration from the parties concerned. It is also an admitted fact that the Ld. AO has made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence, the impugned penalty levied u/s 271 (1)(c) at ₹ 2.55,000/- is DELETED. Accordingly the Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised in appeal are ALLOWED. The appellant has also submitted that the Ld. AO has computed the quantum of levy of penalty wrongly. However, since the entire penalty levied has been deleted, so the issue of wrong computation of penalty amount has become academic and hence not adjudicated. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. When the case was called for hearing, neither the respondent assessee nor any of her authorised representatives appeared before us to represent its case. There is no application for adjournment either. Consequentl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
