TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty order dated 30.09.2013 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called "the AO") u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act") . 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called "the tribunal") read as under:- "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of A.O of levying penalty of Rs. 8,56,765/- in respect of disallowance of alleged bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 27,72,702/-. The said penalty may please be deleted." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is builder and developer and is engaged in the business of setting up power transmission lines, sub-stations, etc.. The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide assessment order dated 20-3-2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3). Penalty proceedings were also initiated by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. During the course of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), the assessee submitted that the purchases were genuine and the material was received and utilized for the purposes of business of the assessee. It was submitted that the list published by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Authorities was subject to objections raised by the parties . Thus, it was not confirmed that the suppliers were not genuine, hence, the disallowance was stated by the assessee as made by the AO to be itself incorrect and the assessee prayed that penalty be not levied on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c). The A.O. rejected the contentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence that the assessee has received back the said amount. It was submitted that accepted reality was always that the purchases has been certainly made, but that bills were received from one vendor although the supplies were received from another party, through some intermediary and in most of the cases either the additions were deleted or certain profit was assessed @12.5% which was brought to tax by appellate authorities . It was submitted that no opportunity for cross examination was given to the assessee and rules of natural justice were flouted . The assessee relied upon large number of cases which are mentioned in the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A) on page 3 and 4. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the submission of the assessee by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d CIT(A) relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mak Data Private Limited reported in 1 SCC 674. The learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee has only given name of the suppliers and amount of purchases but has not given the addresses of these four suppliers from whom purchases to the tune of Rs. 27,72,702/- were allegedly made by the assessee. It was observed by learned CIT(A) that the other details sought by the AO w.r.t. these purchases were also not furnished by the assessee. The assessee has not furnished copies of delivery challans, payment slips nor it was shown that payments were made by account payee cheque to these alleged suppliers. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by the AO wherein pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s who have indulged only in issuing bogus accommodation bills without physically delivering any material . The details of said four parties and amount of alleged bogus purchases are as under: Name of the supplier Purchases during the year 1. Dhruv Sales Corporation Rs. 7,65,847/- 2. Nidhish Impex Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 10,24,145/- 3. Toral Enterprises Rs. 4,67,460/- 4. Tulsiani Trading Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 5,15,250/- Rs. 27,72,702/- The assessee contended that the purchases were genuine purchases and the material so purchased had been utilized/consumed for assessee's business. The assessee could not furnish details of movement of goods such as delivery challans, lorry receipt which could evidence mate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement of goods from selling parties to the assessee is brought on record. At the same time the assessee has also admitted that in these cases supplies are obtained from one vendor and invoices are obtained from other vendor but the material was purchased which was utilized/consumed for business wherein additions have either been deleted or [email protected]% was brought to tax on these alleged bogus purchases by appellate authorities. Under these peculiar factual circumstances and matrix of the case as narrated above, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity and the matter/issue needs to be restored to the file of the AO for de-novo determination of the issue of leviability of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee be allow....