9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e up the ITA No. 1412/M/2020 for the A.Y 2009-10 as a lead case and facts narrated. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. ""On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AD u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of Rs. 1,30,000/-without appreciating the facts that the Assessing officer has correctly held that the assessee has failed to substantiate the transactions claimed in its return of income thereby evade taxes to that extent." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the act of assessee clearly falls within the ambit of provisions of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocessed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) has received information from DGIT (Inv) Mumbai that as per the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department, the assessee has obtained the bogus purchase bills from four parties who are engaged in providing the accommodation bills aggregating to Rs. 50,24,786/-. The A.O. has reason to believe that there is a income escaping the assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee has filed a letter on 15.03.2016 to treat the return of income filed on 30.09.2009 as due compliance. The assessee was provided reasons for reopening of the assessment and subsequently notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act are issued. In compliance, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time to time and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee and relied on the findings in the scrutiny Assessment that the assessee has indulged in obtaining the bogus purchase bills and the A.O. has levied a penalty of Rs. 1,30,000/- and passed order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.06.2017. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A), the CIT(A) considered the grounds of appeal, findings of the A.O and the submissions of the assessee and observed that the A.O has made addition of 8% bogus purchases in the scrutiny assessment U/sec143(3) r.w.s Sec147 of the Act. Whereas the A.O has levied the penalty u/sec 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimated income in the penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) dealt on the provisions of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act and r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ratio of the Honorable Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Vs Cit (W.P.No 2860 dated 18-06- 2014). Further the assessing officer made an addition based on the information received from Sales tax department Maharashtra. We are of the opinion that once the revenue accepts that penalty is levied on the basis of information from the outside agency/ department, the penalty is not sustained. The Ld.DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) with any new cogent evidences or information. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and upheld the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue . ITA.No. 1411/Mum/2020, A.Y 2010-11 8. As the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
