2020 (12) TMI 849

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'). 2. In this case, the AO passed the assessment order u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act after making addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases shown by the assessee. In the first appeal, the Ld.CIT (A) sustained the addition made by the AO. Accordingly, AO initiated proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,95,587/-. The assessee challenged the penalty order passed by the AO before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee deleted the penalty by following the various decisions of the ITAT. Against the said findings of the Ld. CIT (A), the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The revenue has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arties and gone through the material on record including the cases relied upon by the authorities below. The Ld. CIT (A) has deleted the penalty, levied u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act, holding as under:- "8.14 In the present case, the assessments are based on the information received from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai that the appellant has made bogus purchases I taken accommodation entries from certain hawala operators who have indulged in issuing bogus sale/purchase bills without actual delivery of goods. The appellant had submitted various evidence in the form of purchase bill and bank statement highlighting payments made for purchase however, the AO has rejected the claim of the appellant for the reason that the suppliers could not be trac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls, Mumbai in 1TA No. 5967/Mum/2014 dated 11/01/2017 wherein under identical circumstances, the Hon'ble ITAT has held as under: On an appreciation of the material on record we are inclined to concur with the view of the CIT(A) that the explanation put-forth by the assessee in the penalty proceedings was a plausible one, in as much as the circumstances on which the additional income was offered was because the disputed parties with whom these transactions were made were non-cooperative and the assessee having no control over those parties was, therefore, not able to substantiate its claim with necessary material evidence. 8.15 Thus, it can only be concluded in this case that that except for rejection of the explanation ....