2019 (5) TMI 1378

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MBER: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.02.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 5,53,318/- by Ld. CIT(A) as levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....008) 166 taxman.com 65 (SC) and also the decision of Apex Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 (SC) vide order dated 28.09.2015 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also affirmed the order of AO by holding that the AO has rightly imposed penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and thus justified the imposi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty. 6. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, strongly relied on the order of authorities below. 7. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the material on record. We find that in this case the assessment was framed by the AO after making ex-parte addition of Rs. 16,54,146/- towards 100% of the bogus purchases which the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in qua....