TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticulars of income and concealment of income.'' 2.1 Apropos solitary ground of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- "3.3 I have perused the facts of the case, the penalty order and the submissions of the appellant. The appeal is against the penalties levied under section 271(1)( c) of I.T. Act, 1961 on the addition made for bogus purchases. During the assessment proceeding on verification of purchases relating to 10 parties that is (i) Aman Enterprises (ii) Anupam Exports and Imports (iii) Ayush Enterpries (iv) Bright Jewels (v) Esdire International (vi) Gaurav Exports (vii) G.V. Gems International (viii) Metro Gems House (ix) Nidhi Gems (x) Sumit Gems. The Assessing Officer found that in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommission. The onus thus in these cases on the assessee was to prove that in a normal case of purchase. The payment by cheque under which the assessee was taking shelter and the invoices filed were not enough proof in view of the information available with the department. The Hon'ble ITAT in its finding has clearly held that there is a rampant practice in this case that parties are taking accommodation bills from the market to reduce the profitability. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,72,981/- on the addition made of 25% of unverifiable purchases. The assessee's plea in such cases usually is that the addition is on an estimated basis, the assessee has discharged his obligation of proving the purchases. The fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....j Kumar Varshney Vs. I.T.O. and other cases in ITA No. 187/JP/2012 order dated 22/10/2014 and gave detail findings on unverifiable purchases in number of cases. The department has been able to prove that in gems and jewellery business, some of the parties were giving accommodation entry and some of them accepting the accommodation bill to reduce the profit. The parties names figured in this case also were similar to those cases, therefore, we hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was specific and assessee had concealed the income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Further the assessee's explanation is not bonafide. The case laws referred by the assessee are not squarely applicable. In this case, the addition was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see did not maintain the quality details of the stock. The AO thus rejected the books of account of the assessee u/s 143(3) of the Act and made the addition of Rs. 5,65,304/- i.e. @ 25% on unverifiable purchases of Rs. 22,61,216/-. In appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of 25% on unverifiable/bogus purchases observing that the assessee is involved in activities of taking accommodation entries in order to reduce the profitability. It is further noted that the AO vide his order dated 28-08- 2013 imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,72,981/- u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). We have further observed that on similar issue of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, the ITAT Jaipur Bench in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Further the assessee's explanation is not bonafide. The case laws referred by the assessee are not squarely applicable. In this case, the addition was specific with reference to unverifiable purchases. Therefore, we reverse the order of the ld CIT(A)." Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Shiv Lal Tak Vs CIT (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that "in making computation of total income where the income returned has been rejected by rejecting the trading results, finding some discrepancy in the books of account and substituting the same by an estimated figure, in the strict sense, can neither be said to be addition of any am....