TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made by the assessing officer. Since similar issues and identical facts are involved in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are adjudicated together. ITA No. 1602/Ahd/2018 2. The solitary ground of appeal filed by the assessee against the decision of ld. CIT(A) is in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,45,064/- on account of bogus liability u/s. 68 of the act. 3. The fact in brief is that assessment u/s. 143(3) of the act was passed on 28th May, 2014 for the year under consideration. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer noticed outstanding balance of sundry creditors as on 31st March, 2011 to the amount of Rs. 12,45,064/- in respect of which asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder of lower authorities. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the act was completed vide order dated 28th March, 2014 after making addition of Rs. 12,45,064/- being amount outstanding in name of three parties treating the same as bogus liability and added u/s. 68 of the act. It is undisputed fact that assessee has not made any purchases from the three parties shown in the head sundry creditors. The ld. counsel has demonstrated from the detail reflected in annexure-2 as per page no. 53 of the paper book that in respect of three sundry creditors there were having opening balance appeared in the account of the said party to the amount of Rs. 12,45,064/- which has been added by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de ITA No. 1602/Ahd/2018 as adjudicated above, therefore, the penalty levied in this case has become infructuous. Consequently, the same is deleted. This appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 1601/Ahad/2018 10. The assessee has filed appeal against the decision of ld. CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 25,82,560/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act by the assessing officer. In this case, assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the act was made on 28th March, 2014 wherein the amount of Rs. 19,97,584/- outstanding in the name of nine parties were treated as bogus liability and the same was added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the act. Subsequently, the ld. CIT(A) has enhanced the addition to the amount of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the addition only to the extent of profit element to the extent of 15% as per the decision of discussed and cited above in this order. In the light of above facts and circumstances, it observed that relevant detail and information about the purchases transactions was provided by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and assessing officer has incorrectly added the outstanding balance pertaining to sundry creditors in respect of nine parties u/s. 68 of the act on the ground that said parties were not found at given addresses which was subsequently enhanced by ld. CIT(A) by including the whole amount of purchases made by the assessee from these parties. It is noticed that assessing officer has not confronted the assessee to....