ADDT. CIT 32 (1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. CHANDRAIAH BALANNA KALAL, MUMBAI

Brief facts of the case leading to the levy of penalty are that the assessing officer in these cases made disallowance of 100% on account of bogus purchases. Assessee has supplied the purchase vouchers and the payment where shown to have been made by banking channel. However drawing adverse inference for the nonproduction of the suppliers the assessing officer disallowed 100% of the bogus purchases. However the assessing officer did not doubt the sales. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition only @ 11.69% of the bogus purchases. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Ld CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding that in similar bogus purchases matter, penalty on estimated disallowance for bogus purchase was deleted by the ITAT in another case.

Against this order Revenue is in appeal before us.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. As clear from the facts recorded above the disallowance sustained by learned CIT(A) has been made on an estimated basis on account of the nonproduction of suppliers before the assessing officer. The purchase vouchers were duly produced and the payments were through banking channel. In these backgrounds in our considered opinion assessee cannot be visited with the regours of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As a matter of fact, on many occasions on similar circumstances in quantum proceedings the disallowance itself has been deleted. In our considered opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case assessee cannot be said to have been guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In this regard we draw support from the decision of a larger bench of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), where in it was held that the authority may no t levy the penalty if the conduct of the assessee is not found to be contumacious.