TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 798
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) without appreciating the fact that the assessee firm had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in its original return filed by claiming admittedly bogus purchases". 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) by considering the return filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 as suo moto revised return offering the bogus purchase despite the fact that the department was in possession of the information and the bogus purchase of the assessee had already come to light /exposed. 3. The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored." 3. Brief facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars. It was only during the course of assessment proceedings, that the assessee came to know that the parties who had supplied bills to it were not genuine parties. It was submitted that the purchases had in fact been made and the materials were consumed in the construction work but the broker had obtained bills from some non-genuine parties without the assessee's knowledge and by keeping the assessee in the dark. As it was not possible for the assessee to produce the parties from whom purchases had been made after a gap of about four years, the assessee with an idea of buying peace of mind and to avoid litigation offered the amount of all such transactions for taxation by filing revised return of income. The assessee also referred to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the investigation of the Sales Tax Authorities had revealed the nature of the Hawala transactions i.e. only paper transactions without there being any actual sale or purchase of goods. Secondly, while imposing penalty, the AO observed that the revised return filed by the appellant was not a voluntary act but the revised return was filed only after concealment had been detected by the AO. In this regard, it is seen that at the time of issuing the notice u/s 148, the AO only had information from the Sales Tax Department regarding certain Hawala transactions in respect of which the appellant was a beneficiary. Subsequently, when the appellant included the amount of these Hawala transactions in his revised return of income, the AO assessed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posed u/s 271(1)(c) which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The ITAT deleted the same by holding that there was neither any concealment nor any inaccurate particulars had been filed. b. Chenipure v/s ITO (2010) 40 SOT 164 (MUM) - In this case, it was noticed that the assessee was recording bogus purchases. The AO asked the assessee to produce the supplier parties which the assessee failed to do. The AO made addition of the amount of the bogus purchases. The CIT-(A) and the ITAT sustained the addition partly. Penalty u/s 27](1)(c) was imposed which was deleted by the ITAT by holding that penalty could not be imposed for failure of the assessee to produce concerned parties before the AO when the department had the power to issue summons u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come upon receipt of reopening notice. Assessee in its submission has duly submitted that assessee was not aware that the suppliers have given bills from hawala traders. It was duly submitted that goods have actually been received and the work done. We note that the sales in this case has not been doubted. It is settled law that when sales are not doubted hundred percent disallowance on the plank of bogus purchase cannot be done. This exposition comes from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nikunj eximp enterprises. Just because assessee has filed a revised return of income and added the purchases as income, it can be presumed that there has been any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. ....