TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by AO on addition of alleged bogus purchases without appreciating that Assessee had neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income as assessee had made all bonafide disclosures and submitted all the details with respect to alleged bogus purchases and further the addition was sustained on estimate basis and hence, penalty u/s 271(1)( c) is bad in law and 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by AO on addition of alleged bogus purchases without appreciating that the notice u/s 271(1)(c) did not strike out the ir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... following 6 parties: Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. M/s Somnath International (AISPG1601K) Rs. 4,52,520/- 2. Jasmine Enterprises (ALXPM4040Q) Rs. 18,984/- 3. Chetna Enterprise (AAJPS8292B) Rs. 2,01,477/- 4. V.M. Udyog (AGKPC6868L) Rs. 3,62,780/- 5. Shraddha Trading Co. (AOTPM8042B) Rs. 8,82,030/- 6. Bhumi Sales Corporation (AAEPD7085N) Rs. 4,75,820/- Total Rs. 23,93,611/- In order to verify the genuineness and veracity of the aforesaid purchase transactions, the A.O directed the assessee to furnish certain details alongwith copies of purchase bills in respect of the impugned purchases made from the aforementioned parties. In compliance, the assessee furnished ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-, vide his order dated 11.07.2016. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) therein assailed the same before the Tribunal. As the assessee had failed to rectify certain defects in the memorandum of appeal, the same was thus dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No.6105/Mum/2016, dated 30.08.2017. However, the aforesaid order of the Tribunal was thereafter recalled, and the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No. 6105/Mum/2016, dated 15.10.2018, therein restricted the addition to the extent of 10% of the impugned/disputed purchases. The A.O after receiving the order passed by the CIT(A) therein called upon the assessee to explain as to why penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) as regards the addition of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said standalone basis would not justify levy of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c). 8. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short "D.R‟) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the assessee had admittedly made bogus purchases, thus, the A.O had rightly imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c), which thereafter was principally sustained by the CIT(A). 9. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Admittedly, in the case before us the A.O had stamped the purchases aggregating to Rs. 23,93,611/- that were claimed by the assessee to have been made from the aforementioned 6 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income as with the hypothesis that it does. If the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved, i.e. it is not accepted but circumstances do not lead to the reasonable and positive inference that the assessee‟s case is false. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. The appeal is without any substance. The same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs." We are of the considered view that the assessee in the case before us had failed to substantiate the genuineness and veracity of the purchases claimed by him to have been made from the aforementioned parties by p....