ITO WARD 1(5), THANE vs. M/S DISHA IMPLEX, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4527/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 March 2021AY 2009-105 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty, finding no infirmity. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the Assessing Officer could not controvert the CIT(A)'s findings with cogent evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) received information about bogus purchases made by the assessee. After the assessee failed to respond to notices, the AO made a best judgment assessment and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) deleted the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for bogus purchases, and whether the revenue presented sufficient evidence to challenge the deletion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Pronounced: 29/01/2021

आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR - AM:

1.

The revenue has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Thane passed u/s 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Act. The revenue has raised the following the grounds of appeal:

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting

M/s Disha Implex., Mumbai. - 2 - the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) without properly appreciating the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT ( Civil Appeal No. 9772 of 2013 )" and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd, Tax Appeal No. 242 of 2003 dated 20/06/2016 against which the SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also ignoring the fact that Department received specific information in this case from the Sales Tax Department of the State Government of Maharashtra in respect of non- genuine purchase".

2. "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 u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating the fact that there was a definite finding in the assessment order in respect of bogus purchases and of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income relating to purchases resulting into concealment of income.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any ground of appeal.

4. The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the assessing officer may be restored.

2.

At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. We heard the Ld.DR and perused the material on record.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee firm has filed the return of income on 29.09.2009 for the M/s Disha Implex., Mumbai. - 3 - A.Y 2009-10 electronically with a total income of Rs. 2,64,409/-.Subsequently, the A.O. has received information from Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills from four entities of Rs.3,71,240/-. Therefore, the A.O has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the A.O issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire were issued. The above notices were returned unserved by the postal authorities and the A.O. observes that the firm is not carrying on activity at present known address. Since there is no response, the Assessing officer made Best judgment Assessment u/sec144 of the Act and made addition of bogus purchases and assessed the total income of Rs. 6,35,650/- and passed order u/sec 144r.w.s147 of the Act on 28-03-2015. Subsequently, the A.O initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied minimum penalty of Rs. 1,14,710/- and passed the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.09.2015.

M/s Disha Implex., Mumbai. - 4 - 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the grounds of appeal of the assessee and the findings of the A.O has dealt at page 3 para 5 to 8 of the order and deleted the penalty and allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order, the revenue has filed an appeal with the Tribunal.

5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order with out considering the facts that the genuineness of the bogus purchases were not proved and supported the orders of the A.O.

6. We heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue with respect to deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the bogus purchases by the CIT(A). The Ld. DR could not controvert the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) with cogent evidences or any new information. We find the Ld.CIT(A) has relied on judicial decisions and passed a reasonable order. Accordingly, We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and uphold the same and dismissed the grounds of appeal of the revenue.

M/s Disha Implex., Mumbai. - 5 -

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

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 →