TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orementioned appeals, the same, therefore, are being taken up and disposed off together by way of a consolidated order. We shall first take up the appeal of the revenue for A.Y. 2009-10. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) without properly appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Civil Appeal No. 9772 of 2013)", the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd, Tax Appeal No. 242 of 2003 dated 20/06/2016 against which the SLP was dismissed by the Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rns which were in the business of providing bills without delivery of goods etc. in exchange of cash or commission basis, the case of the assessee was reopened under Sec.147 of the Act. In the course of the assessment proceedings it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had claimed to have made purchases aggregating to Rs. 5,23,864/- from the following 7 parties: Sr. No. Name of the entry provider Amount in the bills taken by the assessee in 1. Jain Trading Corporation Rs. 1,25,320/- 2. Bright Corporation Rs. 16,640/- 3. Centurian Sales Corporation Rs. 1,56,094/- 4. Victor Traders Rs. 1,01,920/- 5. Pravesh Enterprises Rs. 16,640/- 6. Atlas Enterprises Rs. 40,040/- 7. Padmavati Trading Co. Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sec. 271(1)(c) before the CIT(A). Observing, that disallowance of purchases cannot automatically justify penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the CIT(A) vacated the penalty imposed by the A.O. 7. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. We find that the assessee respondent despite having been put to notice as regards the date of hearing of the appeal has however failed to put up an appearance before us. Accordingly, being left with no other alternative, we herein proceed with the hearing of the appeal as per Rule 25 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 after hearing the appellant revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ases would justify an addition in the hands of the assessee, however, merely on the said standalone basis no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could have been validly imposed. We find that our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Upendra V. Mithani (ITA (L) No. 1860 of 2009), dated 05.08.2009, wherein it was observed as under:- "The issue involved in the appeal revolves around deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal has concurred with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rightly taken a view that no penalty can be imposed if the facts and circumstances are equally consistent with the hypothe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. (SLP) (Civil) (2018) 97 Taxman.com 279 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court while upholding the order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad, had observed, that where a claim of expenditure is neither found inaccurate nor could be viewed as concealment of income on the part of the assessee, then, merely because the said claim was not accepted or acceptable to the revenue, by itself, would not attract penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c). Now, in the case before us, as the revenue has failed to disprove to the hilt on the basis of clinching evidence the authenticity of the claim of the assessee of having made purchases from the aforementioned parties, therefore, merely on the basis of the unproved claim of purchases no penalty unde....