Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM
O R D E R
Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the revenue against the impugned order dated 30.08.2019, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-26, Mumbai in relation to penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2009- 2010. The revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
Milind V. Deshmukh 1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs.3,80,000/- levied u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act as the penalty was levied on quantum additions made on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating that the onus was on the assessee to the establish the genuineness of such purchases by producing such parties before the assessing Officer and the assessee failed to discharge his onus”? 2. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that the AO has estimated the income without appreciating that the AO has levied penalty, only after verifying the fact that the assessee evaded the taxes on quantum of additions made on account of bofus purchase and the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of such purchase”? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that assessee has neither concealed the particulars of income nor has it furnished inaccurate particulars of income, there being are no findings of income nor has it furnished by the assessee in h9is return are found to be inaccurate or erroneous or false, without appreciating the fact that by resorting to bogus purchases/accommodation entry, the assessee made an attempt to reduce the profitability and thereby attempted to avoid taxes, which in itself proves beyond doubt that assessee concealed particulars of income”?
Milind V. Deshmukh 4. “The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the above grounds be reversed and that of the Asserting Officer be restored”. 5. “The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may my necessary”.
The brief facts of the case are that the AO on the basis of certain information available on the website observed that purchase aggregating to Rs. 11,56,348/- was received from 2 parties namely Shyam Corporation and M.R. Corporation who are in the list of suspicious dealer are non-genuine purchases. Accordingly, he made addition u/s 69C.
Ld. CIT(A) held that the entire purchase cannot be added and restricted the addition by estimating the GP rate 12.5% to the total bogus purchases. Accordingly, the AO has imposed penalty of Rs. 3,80,000 on ad hoc addition @ 12.5%. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty on the ground that AO has not prove the purchases to be taxed or there was no corresponding sales and after referring the various decisions, he deleted the penalty.