2019 (12) TMI 1223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....round/grounds which may be necessary." 3. Briefly stated the facts are that, assessee firm engaged in the business of manufacturer of traders of engineering tools. The assessment for the A.Y. 2010-11 was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 07.03.2016. While completing the assessment on the basis of the information received from DGIT(Investigation), Mumbai the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries from M/s. Nutan Metals without making any purchases from them but made purchases only in gray market. The Assessing Officer treated such purchases as non-genuine as the assessee could not produce the party and also could not establish the movement of goods. Further, Assessing Officer observed that there is no response to the notice issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act from the supplier. The Assessing Officer estimated the profit element in such non-genuine purchases at 12.11% for A.Y. 2010-11 being the Gross Profit shown by the assessee on its turnover for the assessment year under consideration. The addition was accepted and no further appeal has been preferred by the assessee accepting the estimation of profit element from non-genuine purch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te details in the return of income and made a claim and simply because the claim is denied and cannot lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. No allegation by Assessing Officer that the assessee failed to disclose the particulars relating to its claim in the return of income. Thus we hold that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act." 8. Similarly, in the case of DCIT v. Manohar Manak, Alloys Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 5586/MUM/2015 dated 16.01.2017 the Coordinate Bench held as under: - "9. We have heard the rival parties and carefully considered material placed before us including the order of the authorities below. We find from the assessment order that the AO has made an addition of Rs. 45,76,587/- being 5% on total purchases on estimated basis in order to bring the bogus purchases to tax on the basis of information received from the third party i.e. State Sales Tax Department and DDIT(Inv) V(I), Mumbai which was not challenged by the assessee before the FAA and attained finality. Thereafter the AO levied pen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal has held that the AO was not justified in making the addition on the basis of statements given by the third parties before the Sales Tax Department, without conducting any other investigation. In the instant case also, the assessing officer has made the impugned addition on the basis of statements given by the parties before the Sales tax department. We notice that the ld.CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that no sales could be effected without purchases. He has further placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249). He has further relied upon the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Premanand (2008)(25 SOT 11)(Jodh), wherein it has been held that where the AO has made addition merely on the basis of observations made by the Sales tax dept and has not conducted any independent enquiries for making the addition especially in a case where the assessee has discharged its primary onus of showing books of account, payment by way of account payee cheque and producing vouchers for sale of goods, such an addition could not be sustained. The Ld CIT(A) has als....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....see by invoking Section 271(1)(c) along with the Explanation 1(B) of the Act on the plea that he had concealed the particulars of his income. A show-cause notice was issued to him under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)'(c) of the Act. In reply thereto, the assessee pleaded that since no positive concealment had been detected by the Department and the addition was made in his income only on estimate basis, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be imposed because the assessee's income on estimate basis keeping in view his household expenses as well as the statement of accretion to his assets during the year under consideration, was bona fide. The Assessing Officer did not accept the reply and found that since the assessee had not filed any fresh evidence in penalty proceedings to prove that there was no attempt on his part to conceal his income, he, by his order dated March 10, 1992, imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Patiala, who allowed the same holding that there was indeed no positive evidence whatever to show that the appellant's income durin....