Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai
O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 24.5.2019 against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (in short Act) amounting to Rs. 3,41,600/- for assessment year 2020-11.
Brief facts leading to levy of penalty in this care are that additions were made on account of bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer had made ground for addition of Rs. 5,19,867/- out of bogus purchase of Rs. 2,10,760/-. Penalty was also levied on the said addition.
Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merit but dismissed the same on the ground that the appeal was not filed electronically but in physical form. Against this order the assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard both the parties and perused the record. As regards dismissal of the ground by learned CIT(A) we note that rule mandating filing of appeal electronically was not in existence in the present assessment year.
2 Manisha Rubber Enterprises Hence in this view of the matter two views are possible that earlier assessment year appeal can be filed in physical form. Moreover, now appeal in electronic form has also be filed and we find that penalty on bogus purchase in similar facts has been deleted by the ITAT in several decisions. As clear from the facts recorded above the disallowance 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 this 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 the 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.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.