Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. R.M. Mehta & Co. ACIT-2 New Trombay Road Piramal Chambers बनाम/ Opp. Godrej Foods Ltd. Lalbaugh Vs. Opp. Castrol Depot, Mumbai – 400013. Wadala(W), Mumbai – 400037. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAAFR-1399-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Ashok Mehta- Ld. AR Revenue by : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak-Ld.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 28/01/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/02/2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2009-10 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-48/IT-380/ACIT-21(3)/2018-19 dated 13/11/2018 on following grounds of appeal: -
1. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty of Rs. 4,77,244/- under section 271(1)(c) & CIT Appeal – 48 erred in confirming the same.
2 R.M. Mehta & Co. Assessment Year :2009-10 2. The Learned Assessing Officer and CIT Appeal – 48 erred in confirming penalty without appreciating that the addition is made on account of estimation and probability without any evidence against the assessee.
The Learned Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty without considering the fact that the assessee had provided all the evidences including truck nos in which the delivery was made to the assessee and further sold the goods & the CIT Appeal – 48 erred in confirming the same.
The assessee craves leave to add/alter/amend/delete any of the above grounds of appeal
. As evident from ground of appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.4.77 Lacs.
2. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee (AR) submitted that penalty has been levied on estimated additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The Ld. AR submitted that additions made merely on estimated basis would not justify penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Au Contraire, Ld. DR pointed out that the assessee miserably failed to substantiate the purchase transactions and therefore, the levy of penalty was justified. 3.1 Facts on record would reveal that the assessee was assessed for year under consideration u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 30/03/2014. The reassessment proceedings were triggered pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department that the assessee obtained fictitious purchases bills for Rs.123.55 Lacs from an entity namely M/s Raj Traders. Although the assessee produced copies of challans and bills of supplier along with evidence of payment through banking channels but failed to produce the supplier for verification of purchases. Consequently, Ld. AO made estimated additions of 25% against such purchases and initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate