PRATAPRAM CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 19(2)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 304/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 November 2017AY 2009-104 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars leading to concealment of income due to unsubstantiated bogus purchases. The concerned supplier also did not appear for confirmation.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenged a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal proceeded ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income due to bogus purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘C’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Mittal-DR
Hearing: 02/11/2017

आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is in appeal, challenging the impugned order dated 20/11/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, upholding the penalty of Rs.28,55,933/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).

2.

During hearing, none was present for the assessee in spite of receipt of notice as is evident from the acknowledgment (signed on 19/01/2016). The assessee neither presented himself nor moved adjournment petition. It seems that the assessee has nothing to say therefore, we have no option but to proceed ex-parte, qua the assessee, and tend to dispose of this appeal on the basis of material available on record. The Ld. DR, Shri Rajat Mittal strongly defended the addition by inviting our attention to the factual finding recorded in the impugned order as well as penalty order.

1.

2.1. We have considered the submissions of ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is noted that (para- 5.2 of the impugned order) the addition made with respect to bogus purchases was confirmed by the Tribunal as the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the purchases from Chirag Corporation and the amount was outstanding at the year end. Thus, the ingredients of section 271(1)(c) of the Act were not fulfilled by the assessee as there is furnishing of inaccurate particulars resulting into concealment of income.

The concerned party also did not appear before the Assessing Officer for confirmation with respect to supply of goods to the assessee. Thus, the bogus nature of claimed purchases of goods remained unsubstantiated. The contents of the claim filed in the return with respect to these bogus purchases also remained unsubstantiated, therefore, we affirm the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. DR at the conclusion of the hearing on 02/11/2017.

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 →