https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776561 The ITAT Delhi upheld the AO's imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for bogus purchases, rejecting the assessee's failure to furnish details as a valid excuse. The tribunal affirmed that the onus lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of claimed purchases, and non-compliance during assessment, penalty, and appellate proceedings justified the penalty. The AO's reliance on precedent concerning non-disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was also upheld, emphasizing the need to deter inaccurate returns and protect government revenue. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was reversed, and the penalty levied by the AO was confirmed. The Revenue's appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 07 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776561 The ITAT Delhi upheld the AO's imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for bogus purchases, rejecting the assessee's failure to furnish details as a valid excuse. The tribunal affirmed that the onus lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of claimed purchases, and non-compliance during assessment, penalty, and appellate proceedings justified the penalty. The AO's reliance on precedent concerning non-disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was also upheld, emphasizing the need to deter inaccurate returns and protect government revenue. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was reversed, and the penalty levied by the AO was confirmed. The Revenue's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776561