Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “H” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष एविं श्री एन. के. प्रधान, रेखा दस्म के भक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM आमकय अऩीर िं./ (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer Shri Harjeet Singh Bhatti Ward 1(5), Thane Lovely Industrial Estate, फनाभ/ Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-400 604 Vs. (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./PAN No. AARPB9526H अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant by : Shri T.S. Khalsa, DR प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent by : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date of hearing: 05.02.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date of pronouncement: 30.03.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of Revenue is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-3, Nasik [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. 554/17-18/NSK (Old 709/15-16/THN) dated 15.06.2018. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5),
The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in regard to bogus purchases. For this, Revenue has raised the following two grounds: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) merely on the grounds it was levied on estimate basis and voluntary surrender by the assessee without properly appreciating the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No.9772 of 2013)”.
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlw, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) without appreciating the fact that the levy of penalty on estimated addition on account of bogus
We have heard the learned DR and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has obtained bogus bills from Krasna Enterprises amounting to Rs. 2,08,125/- and from Jain Corporation amounting to Rs.11,02,500/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated this purchases as bogus by holding that as per the information received from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra, the aforesaid parties are hawala dealers and the assessee has obtained bogus bills from them. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings and levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that none was present from assessee’s side. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the penalty by observing as under : - “6.5. Penalty on addition because the supplier parties are not available:- Following judgments on the issue of levy of the penalty, where addition was made on because the supplier parties are not available are summarized as under. 1. Unisynth Chemicals ITAT Mumbai- TMI-ITAT held that On an appreciation of the material on record we are inclined to concur the 6.6. In view of above discussion, the imposition of penalty in this case is not justifiable and hence the penalty levied by the AO at Rs. 42,890/- is deleted.”