TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Mumbai [CIT(A)] erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellant's case in confirming penalty of Rs. 15,918/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, circle - 1(1)(2), Mumbai [AO] vide order dated 17/03/2015; 1.1 CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that: (i) Appellant's CA did attend before him on 28th September, 2015 in response to notice of hearing dated 04.09.2015 and he informed CIT(A) about pending appeal before CIT(A) - 1 for quantum addition made in respect of which said penalty of Rs. 15,918/- was imposed and CA had requested CIT(A) to adjourn the hearing and he also f iled letter dated 28.09.2015 in the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les tax department that the assessee company had booked bogus purchases during the year under consideration, the case of the assessee was reopened and a notice u/s. 148, dated 14.03.2014 was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee in compliance to the aforesaid notice therein requested that its original return of income which was e-filed on 29.09.2009 may be treated as the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148, which was accepted and acted upon as such by the A.O. 3. That during the course of the assessment proceedings the A.O observing that the assessee had made a purchase of Rs. 46,831/- from M/s. Asian Steel during the year under consideration, therein called upon it to substantiate the genuineness and veracity of the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'A.R.') for the assessee that the quantum addition of Rs. 46,831/- made by the A.O while framing the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 had thereafter on appeal been deleted by the CIT(A) vide his order 24.02.2017, and therein took us through the copy of the order passed by the CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the CIT(A) after duly appreciating that as the sales corresponding to the aforesaid purchase transaction had not been disputed by the A.O, therefore, the addition of the entire amount of purchase of Rs. 46,831/-(supra) could not be sustained. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that the CIT(A) being of the view that as the assessee must had carried out th....