2020 (3) TMI 1233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the alleged bogus purchases from the Hawala parties during the course of assessment as well as penalty proceedings. 2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty by not appreciating the fact that the assessee could not produce the alleged bogus parties for verification of genuineness of transaction during assessment proceedings as well as penalty proceedings and voluntary disclosure of his concealed income does not absolve the assessee from penalty. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed accommodation entries from the party without making any purchases but made purchases only in gray market. The Assessing Officer treated such purchases from the party as non-genuine as the assessee could not produce the parties and also could not establish the movement of goods. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated entire purchases as non-genuine and brought to tax. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty. Against this order of the Ld.CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before us. 4. Inspite of is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en filed against the quantum order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar Mills (168 ITR 7051) held that there may be a hundred and one reasons for not protesting and agreeing to an addition but that does not follow to the conclusion that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013 35 taxmann.com 250) categorically held that:- "....The very fact that the assessee agreed to pay tax and did not challenge the assessment order, cannot be construed as mala fide." 6. Following judicial pronouncements can also be relied on in support of the proposition that voluntary surrender of income does not attra....