9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 20/05/2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ["learned CIT(A)"], for the assessment year 2011-12, which in turn arose from the penalty order dated 03/01/2022 passed un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial to prove the genuineness of the purchases, made the addition of 12.5% of the total purchases. Meanwhile, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately. After considering the submissions of the assessee the AO vide order dated 03/01/2022 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied a penalty of Rs. 1,41,020. 5. We find that the learned CIT(A), vide impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchases made through three parties on the basis of the information received from the sales-tax department that those three parties were engaged in providing bills without supplying any good. However, the Ld.CIT(A) has estimated the quantum addition to the extent of 12.5% of purchases. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty of Rs. 8,13,793/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able on estimated additions and also after taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries 360 ITR 580; the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd 303 ITR 53 (P&H); and the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Subhsh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
