ASST CIT 32 (2), MUMBAI vs. MANGALSINGH M RATHORE, MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 12.10.2010 declaring a total income to the tune of Rs.1,22,99,431/- for the A.Y.2010-11. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of the information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken the bogus purchase entry of Rs.28,029,936/- from the following parties.:-

VAT Name of the Party Amount 27140326567V Saraogi Syndicate 11771134 27930114236V Karan Enterprises 2766877 27370565400V Sunrise Enterprises 846893 27340553631V Shruti Sales Corporation 2552432 27310642839V Mital Enterprise 384517 27190661917V Madhav Trading Co. 1670776 A.Y.2010-11 27030265566V Amar Enterprises 1010582 27540680106V Anshu Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. 1129675 27450680107V Dhiren Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. 1247408 27770112384V Nimesh Trading Co. 2887819 2700557604V Rakesh Enterprises 2765624 27300350341V Shakti Trading Co 2666219 27330145897V Shreeji Enterprises 1249862 27840584105V Tisha Enterprises 2774118 Total 28029936 The notice was given and after the reply of the assessee, the AO raised the addition to the extent of Rs. 28,029,936/- i.e 100% of bogus purchase. The income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.4,55,72,900/-. The penalty proceeding was initiated. The notice was given and after the reply of the assessee, the AO levied the penalty to the tune of Rs.10,51,123/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted the penalty, therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us.

“6.4.1 I have considered the submissions of the appellant and perused the materials available on record The appellant has requested to delete

ITA No. 07/Mum/2020 A.Y.2010-11 the impugned penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.10,51,123/- The main contentions of the appellant are that it has neither concealed particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income mere rejection of appellants claim would not automatically lead to levy o1 penalty and it had submitted necessary evidences in support of its claim, but the same was not accepted by the Ld AO and where the addition has been made or sustained on estimation basis the penalty u/s 271(1 }(c) of the Act is not leviable In support of its claim the appellant has placed reliance on various judicial precedents as detailed above. The contentions of the appellant have been considered carefully The Ld AO had made the addition on account of bogus purchases at Rs 2 80,29,936/- The Ld CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of The appellant on this issue However, the Hon'ble ITAT has held that the profit element involved in such purchases may be estimated @ 12.5% and hence restricted the addition @ 12.5% of such bogus/suspicious purchases The fads of the case suggest that The Lcf AO had made said addition on the ground that the appellant could not prove the purchases under consideration from [he parties concerned. It is also an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal on this issue ano1 the Hon'ble ITAT has restricted said addition lo 12 5%. on esti ma red/ad -hoc basis in the case of M/s Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation in are Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai vide its order dated 02 05.2017 has deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act, where the addition u/s 69C of The Act was made on account of bogus purchases, on the ground that the assessee made a claim which was bonafide and the same was coupled with documentary evidences but the same renamed inconclusive for wan! of confirmation from The suppliers as they could not be traced at given address Further the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Ajay Loknath Lohia in ITA No. 2998/Mum/20l7. vide its order dated 05.10.2018 has deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. on The disallowance/add-on made @25% on ITA No. 07/Mum/2020 A.Y.2010-11 alleged bogus purchases made from hawala dealers based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department and where the appellant had accepted such estimated addition, after holding that though the AO had estimated 25% gross profit on alleged bogus purchases never made any observations with regard to the incorrectness m details filed by the assesses to prove such purchases 6.4.2 From The above it fs evident that the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar as to the facts adjudicated by The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in above referred cases Respectfully following the same, I am of the considered opinion that This is not a fit case to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the impugned penalty levied u/s 27l(1)(c) at Rs.10,51,123/- DELETED, Accordingly, the Ground Wo 1 raised in appear is ALLOWED.”

A.Y.2010-11 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/09/2021