9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Year (AY) 2013-14, which in turn arising out of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 17.01.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in levying Penalty of Rs. 21,757/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 3. Appellant crave s leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal." 3. The appeal filed by assessee is barred by 147 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. He submitted that the assessee was negligent, inactive and not diligent. 5. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue of delay in filing appeal. In the affidavit, it is submitted that the notices and the order were issued on the wrong e-mail id. Further, the earlier counsel did not inform the appellant about the order of CIT(A) about fate of appeal due to which, the delay of 147 days has occurred in filing appeal before the Tribunal. We find that assessee was not negligent but due to absence of legal advice of earlier tax consultant, there was delay in filing the present appeal. The delay in filing the appeal was not deli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty proceedings, the assessee submitted that the AO failed to bring any evidence on record that the above amount represents bogus purchases. All payments for the said purchases were done through account payee cheques only. The AO has accepted genuineness of sales but, on the other hand, disallowed purchases made from the impugned party. The CIT(A) restricted addition to 5% of total purchases only on estimation basis. Hence, there is not case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO did not accept such explanation and proceeded to levy the penalty because the CIT(A) had partly confirmed the addition made by the AO. He levied minimum penalty of Rs. 21,750/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 7. Aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Deepak Banwarial Agarwal vs. ITO, ITA No.827/SRT/2023 (Surat - Trib.) and (iv) M/s Opulent Jewels Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.1584/AHD/2012/SRT, dated 15.11.2018. 9. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. He submitted that the case of revenue right from the beginning is that the assessee has shown bogus purchases and thus, furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The stand of revenue is upheld by the CIT(A) in restricting the addition to the extent of 5% of bogus purchases. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition upheld in the quantum appellate proceedings. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
