ITAT deletes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on estimated income additions for bogus purchases

The ITAT Mumbai deleted penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed on estimated income additions. The assessee faced additions of 12.5% on purchase amounts due to alleged bogus purchases from parties issuing accommodation bills, as reported by Sales Tax Department. The tribunal held that penalties cannot be sustained on estimated additions, following precedent in Jatin Enterprises v. ACIT. Since the assessment was based on estimation rather than concrete evidence of concealment, the penalty was deemed unsustainable and deleted. Both grounds of the assessee's appeal were allowed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A) NFAC.
2. Alleged non-genuine purchases leading to penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were against the CIT(A) NFAC's orders for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12. The ITAT adjudicated all appeals together, considering similar issues. The lead case was ITA No. 4402/Mum/2023.

2. The case involved the assessee's non-genuine purchases flagged by the Sales Tax Department. The assessing officer reopened the case under section 147 and added a profit element to the income. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated, resulting in a penalty of Rs. 2,18,350 levied by the AO.

3. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, leading to an appeal by the assessee. The assessee argued that the penalty lacked legal basis as there was no proof of income concealment. Reference was made to a similar ITAT decision in the case of Jatin Enterprises Vs. ACIT.

4. The ITAT reviewed the material and submissions. The assessing officer estimated a profit element on non-genuine purchases. Despite the assessee providing purchase details and supporting documents, the AO disagreed. The ITAT noted the CIT(A) decision in a similar case and deleted the penalty, citing that penalties on estimated additions are unsustainable.

5. Consequently, the penalty on the estimated addition was deemed unsustainable, and the penalty was deleted. The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal in all three cases (AY 2009-10 to 2011-12).

This comprehensive analysis highlights the legal journey and reasoning behind the ITAT's decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) in the cited judgment.

---