2015 (6) TMI 1214 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Overturns Penalty Due to Lack of Evidence, Orders Deletion of Rs. 7,30,464 Penalty for 2005-06 Tax Year.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the CIT(A)'s order, and directed the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 7,30,464 under section 271(1)(c) of the ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - estimation of income - bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- There is merit in the contentions of the assessee. Admittedly, the AO has disallowed 20% of purchases only on presumptions without establishing fully that the assessee has made purchases from grey market. Even, if it is assumed for a moment that the assessee might have purchased goods from grey market, it was not established that the amount of purchases was less than that recorded in the books of account. Under these set of facts, it has to be held that the impugned addition has been made only on estimated basis that too on presumptions only. Hence, by following the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the assessee’s sister concern’s case [2015 (1) TMI 521 - ITAT MUMBAI] we hold that the impugned penalty is liable to deleted. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Issues:Challenge to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2005-06 based on disallowance of purchases made from a company involved in accommodation bills.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld CIT(A) confirming a penalty of Rs. 7,30,464 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The case revolved around purchases worth Rs. 3.43 crores made by the assessee from a company, Triton Infotech Pvt Ltd, during a search and seizure operation in the Etco group. The director of Triton Infotech Pvt Ltd admitted to providing accommodation bills instead of materials. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed 20% of the purchases, adding Rs. 65,21,831 to the income, suspecting grey market purchases to avoid local taxes.2. During the hearing, the Ld A.R argued that the addition was based on presumptions and estimates, contesting the justification for the penalty. The Ld A.R also presented a case where a similar addition in the assessee's sister concern had been deleted by the Tribunal. In contrast, the Ld D.R relied on the CIT(A)'s order upholding the penalty.3. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions, noting that the AO's disallowance lacked concrete evidence of grey market purchases. Even if presumed, it was not proven that the actual purchases were lower than recorded. Referring to a previous case involving the assessee's sister concern, where a similar penalty was deleted, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty in question should be deleted as it was solely based on estimates and presumptions.4. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and directing the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 7,30,464 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2005-06. The decision was pronounced on 3rd June, 2015.