TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as on 26th March 2017. Therefore the same is within time limit provided under the provision of law. The penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied either on account of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - In this case the assessee has shown purchases from certain parties but failed to support the same based on the documentary evidence. Indeed the primary onus lies upon the assessee to justify the genuineness of the purchases. The assessee has only filed the copy of the ledger of the purchases from one-party. But the assessee failed to file the copies of the bill/invoices for the freight charges, octroi details of the vehicles used in the transportation of the goods. Thus it is clear that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon it under the provisions of law. Admittedly, the assessee against the purchases has shown sales which were not doubted by the authorities below. Indeed, the sales are not possible without the corresponding purchases. Thus, the entire amount of purchases cannot be treated as income despite the fact that the assessee failed to discharge onus with respect to such purchases. ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act on the amount of alleged bogus purchase of ₹ 15,29,625/-. 3. In any case, the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation and thus without jurisdiction and illegal. 4. In any case, quantification of the penalty is erroneous and excessive 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 4. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty in part under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act instead of deleting the same in e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of addition has been changed by the ITAT is not correct. 8. Likewise, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Chandravilas Hotel reported in 29 Taxman 492 has confirmed the penalty based on estimated basis. Accordingly, the learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee that there cannot be any penalty based on estimated addition. However, the learned CIT (A) directed the AO to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with respect to the addition of ₹ 15,29,625/- only which was confirmed by the ITAT. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The assessee in the ground of appeal has challenged the penalty order on the ground that there was no specific charge levied by the AO in the assessment order whether it was for concealment of income or on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, it was contended by the assessee in the ground of appeal that penalty order is not maintainable. 10.1 It was also submitted by the assessee in the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the genuineness of the purchases. The assessee has only filed the copy of the ledger of the purchases from one-party. But the assessee failed to file the copies of the bill/invoices for the freight charges, octroi details of the vehicles used in the transportation of the goods. Thus it is clear that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon it under the provisions of law. Admittedly, the assessee against the purchases has shown sales which were not doubted by the authorities below. Indeed, the sales are not possible without the corresponding purchases. Thus, the entire amount of purchases cannot be treated as income despite the fact that the assessee failed to discharge onus with respect to such purchases. 12.3 Generally, the assessee adopts the practice for taking the bogus bills from the market when it makes purchases of the goods from the grey market in cash and without the bills which cannot be accounted in the books of accounts. Accordingly the assessee to bring such purchase of goods in accounting form arranges the bogus bills from the market. Accordingly, the entire amount of bogus purchases shown by the assessee cannot be treated as income of the assessee. Wha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
