Appeal success for 2011-12, penalty quashed; Dismissal for 2012-13, 10% addition upheld.

The appeal for assessment year 2011-12 was allowed as the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was deemed unjustified by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune. The penalty for concealment of income was challenged, citing legal precedent that penalty cannot be imposed for a different ground than the one initiated. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the AO was quashed. However, the appeal for assessment year 2012-13 was dismissed as the addition of 10% based on purchases from Hawala operators was upheld by the tribunal, following the CIT(A)'s decision and relying on a previous tribunal order.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2011-12.
- Appeal regarding the addition of 10% in place of 20% made by the AO for assessment year 2012-13.

Issue 1: Penalty Imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2011-12
The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars. The contention was that the penalty for concealment of income was not justifiable based on the decision of the Bombay High Court. The AO recorded satisfaction for inaccurate particulars but imposed a penalty for concealment, which was deemed contrary to the law. Citing a previous judgment, it was highlighted that penalty cannot be imposed for a different ground than the one initiated. Following the legal precedent, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed unjustified, and the order confirming the penalty was quashed.

Issue 2: Addition of 10% for AY 2012-13
The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in various businesses, faced an addition based on purchases from Hawala operators. The AO added a specific amount as the purchases were made through brokers in the gray market. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 10% based on the appellant's inability to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases. The CIT(A) relied on a previous tribunal order for this decision. The tribunal, considering similar cases, confirmed the addition at 10% for the bogus Hawala purchases. Consequently, the grounds raised by the appellant were dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was deemed justified. Therefore, the appeal for the assessment year 2012-13 was dismissed.

In conclusion, the appeal for assessment year 2011-12 was allowed, while the appeal for assessment year 2012-13 was dismissed. The judgment was pronounced on 16th December 2019 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune, with detailed analysis and legal references provided for each issue raised in the appeals.

---