Tribunal upholds penalty despite appellant's plea

The Tribunal upheld the penalty confirmation of Rs. 8,10,638 under section 271(1)(c) by CIT(A) despite the appellant's plea for non-leviability based on intention to rectify discrepancies. The Tribunal considered the appellant's admission of bogus purchases and subsequent actions, deeming the surrender of income not voluntary. Citing precedent in Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Tribunal affirmed the penalty, rejecting the appellant's arguments and dismissing the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by CIT(A) without proper opportunity to appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue I & II:
The appellant challenged the penalty confirmation of Rs. 8,10,638 under section 271(1)(c) by CIT(A). The appellant argued for non-leviability of penalty based on the intention to focus on business and pay taxes on discrepancies to buy peace. Cited case laws included CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 0009 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shiv Kumar Jaiswal. The appellant admitted the bogus purchases and sought deletion of the penalty. However, the department relied on Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC). The Assessing Officer added Rs. 27,02,126 as income due to bogus purchases based on information from DGIT (Inv.). The appellant's submission acknowledged the discrepancy and offered to disallow the purchases as expenses. The appellant's explanation included details on purchases from various parties and the subsequent VAT audit findings. Despite the appellant's plea to buy peace and pay taxes, the penalty was confirmed by CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found the surrender of income not voluntary as it was in response to detection by the Assessing Officer. The penalty was deemed applicable as per the law cited in Mak Data P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised by the appellant regarding the confirmation of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) and the Tribunal's decision based on the arguments presented and relevant case laws.

---