M/S MEDIBIOS LABORATORIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12 (3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5549/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 March 2021AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty was ex-parte and that the addition was made on an estimated basis. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be levied.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer added the amount of purchases to the income, and the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when additions are made on an estimated basis and the CIT(A) order is ex-parte.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakrar, AR
Hearing: 25.03.2021Pronounced: 25.03.2021

आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-20, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-20/IT-10037/2018-19 dated 25.06.2019. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Wad 9(2)(3), Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO), for the A.Y 2010-11 vide order dated 01.03.2013 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The penalty under dispute was levied by Income Tax officer,

1.

2. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act ex- parte. For this, the assessee has raised the following ground nos. 1,2 & 3: -

“1. The Ld. Assessing Officer as well as the Ld CIT(A) is erred in confirming addition of Rs.3,22,452/- as bogus purchases without considering the Fact that the Appellant had already filed purchase bill, copy of bank statement and delivery challan at the time of assessment and erred in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs.99,638/-.

2.

The Ld CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filled by the Appellant and mentioned in the order that the appellant’s Representative (AR) had not filed letter of authority while taking adjournment but the fact was the AR had already filled Letter of authority with his letter dated 23.05.2019.

3. The AR went to meet the Ld. CIT(A) on 20.06.2019 but at that time Ld CIT(A) was not available and AR had requested the Ld CIT(A)’s staff that please issue hearing date after 29.06.2019 as the AR was not available between 22.06.2019 to 28.06.2019. But instead of

3.

Briefly stated the facts are that the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has obtained the bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.3,22,452/- from hawala dealers identified by the Sales Tax Department. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings added the whole amount of alleged bogus purchases to the returned income of the assessee. The additions made by Assessing Officer remain unchallenged.

4.

The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer in penalty proceedings noted that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in regard to bogus purchases and hence, he levied the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 99,638/- on the additions made of Rs.3,22,452/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

5.

The CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order and confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has filed purchase bill, copy of bank statement and delivery challan at the time of assessment proceedings. We find that the order passed by CIT (A) confirming levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act is ex-parte. In our

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →