DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

bogus purchases the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is sustainable or not. As the facts and circumstances leading to the addition in both these 08. appeals are similar, the learned Authorized Representative Ms. Ridhisha Jain, submitted a detailed written submission contesting the first ground of appeal stating that both the penalty

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

bogus purchases the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is sustainable or not. As the facts and circumstances leading to the addition in both these 08. appeals are similar, the learned Authorized Representative Ms. Ridhisha Jain, submitted a detailed written submission contesting the first ground of appeal stating that both the penalty

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

271(1)(c) of the Act levied based on estimated addition of the Act levied based on estimated addition of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

271(1)(c) of the Act levied based on estimated addition of the Act levied based on estimated addition of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is of bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

b) No information or evidence was available about the extent of inflated purchases and therefore, the order of the Learned CIT(A) had confirmed the addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases. The claim of the Assessee that in absence of any evidence, no disallowance can be made was not acceptable as the Assessee could

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

b) Ajay Loknath Lohia v. ITO, (ITA No. 2998/Mum./2017) (order dated 5.10.2018) In this case, the AO reassessed the income of the assessee at Rs.15,90,000 by making addition towards 25% gross profit on alleged bogus purchase made from hawala dealers. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

b) Ajay Loknath Lohia v. ITO, (ITA No. 2998/Mum./2017) (order dated 5.10.2018) In this case, the AO reassessed the income of the assessee at Rs.15,90,000 by making addition towards 25% gross profit on alleged bogus purchase made from hawala dealers. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

section 132(4), the Explanation 5A as it stood on the date of filing of return/revised return by the assessee, levy of penalty on the additional income included in the return based only on the sworn statement of the assessee cannot be sustained. Accordingly the penalty levied upon the assessees deserved to be deleted.” 38. The fact that the revenue

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

section 132(4), the Explanation 5A as it stood on the date of filing of return/revised return by the assessee, levy of penalty on the additional income included in the return based only on the sworn statement of the assessee cannot be sustained. Accordingly the penalty levied upon the assessees deserved to be deleted.” 38. The fact that the revenue

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

section 132(4), the Explanation 5A as it stood on the date of filing of return/revised return by the assessee, levy of penalty on the additional income included in the return based only on the sworn statement of the assessee cannot be sustained. Accordingly the penalty levied upon the assessees deserved to be deleted.” 38. The fact that the revenue

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

section 132(4), the Explanation 5A as it stood on the date of filing of return/revised return by the assessee, levy of penalty on the additional income included in the return based only on the sworn statement of the assessee cannot be sustained. Accordingly the penalty levied upon the assessees deserved to be deleted.” 38. The fact that the revenue

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

section 132(4), the Explanation 5A as it stood on the date of filing of return/revised return by the assessee, levy of penalty on the additional income included in the return based only on the sworn statement of the assessee cannot be sustained. Accordingly the penalty levied upon the assessees deserved to be deleted.” 38. The fact that the revenue

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 292B and 29BB of the 1961 Act. Thus, keeping in view factual matrix of the ground, this legal ground is also adjudicated against the assessee. Thus, the assessee fails on both legal ground as well on merits of the issue with respect to deposit of cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- in bank account for which penalty as levied