TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5932/Mum/2018 for the A.Y 2010-11.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that all the notices were sent to appellant an old address of the appellant although the new address was known to A.O, which is proven by the fact that the orders and demand notices for the earlier year i.e. for 2009-10 was sent to him on new address. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) also failed to consider that the impugned order is passed in contravention of principal of natural justice. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the Ld. A.O has illegally reopened the case of the appellant without verifying the veracity of alleged information, since penalty proceeding is independent of assessment proceeding. 4. The Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oviding the bogus purchase bills without actually delivery of goods. Therefore, the A.O initiated reassessment proceeding u/sec148 of the Act. In the F.Y 2009-10 the assessee has obtained the bills from M/s Disa Enterprises of Rs. 6,31,655/-.Since, the assessee could not substantiate the purchases with explanations, the Ld.A.O made addition of Rs. 6,31,655/- and Assessed the total income of Rs. 11,73,490/- and passed u/s 143 r.w.s 147 of the Act, Subsequently, the A.O initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The A.O in the penalty proceedings observed that the assessee could not substantiate the genuineness of the purchases to the extent of Rs. 6,31,665/- and show cause notice was issued on 03.08.2016. None appeared on behalf of the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion on account of bogus purchases by estimating @12.5% of bogus purchases as income of the assessee and was accepted. Therefore the levy of penalty on the estimated income cannot be sustained and prayed for allowing the appeal. 4. Contra, Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue as envisaged by the Ld. AR is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the A.O based on the order of the A.O under 143 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The Ld. AR has emphasized that against the addition of bogus purchases, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the appellate authorities. The Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition t....