TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 477
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent its case. There is no application seeking adjournment either. Considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose off the appeal ex-parte qua the respondent assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record. 3. The sole dispute that we need to adjudicate is, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 63,920, imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") by the Assessing Officer. 4. Brief facts are, the assessee being a firm is engaged in the business of fabrication and manufacturing of pharmaceutical packaging materials. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esaid purchases through supporting evidences. Since the evidences produced by the assessee vide letter dated 10th March 2015, were not to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer held that the purchases shown by the assessee are non-genuine. Hence, the Assessing Officer, relying upon certain judicial pronouncement, he made addition @ 17.5% to the extent of non-genuine purchases worth Rs. 11,82,092 and accordingly made disallowance of Rs. 2,06,866 which was added to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee tried to evade taxes through producing bogus purchase bills thereby concealed particulars of its actual income, therefore, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 63,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iture and not finding of concealment to reduce taxable income. The addition made on account of disallowance of a percentage of expenditure as bogus automatically cannot justify the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. While coming to such conclusion, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon certain decisions viz. (ii) Sir Shadilal Sugar Mills, 168 ITRT 7051 (SC); (ii) CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, [2013] 35 taxmann.com 20) (Kar.); (iii) Earthmoving Equipment Service Corp. v/s DCIT, ITA no. 6617/Mum./ 2014 (Mum.); (iv) Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT, [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC); (v) ETCO Profiles Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.5351/Mum./ 2021 (Mum.) and (vi) CIT v/s Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee not filing any appeal against the disallowance of Rs. 2,06,866 before the first appellate authority, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 63,920, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the alleged non-genuine purchases. In our opinion, because the assessee has accepted the assessment order and for buying peace if the assessee agrees to face the disallowance so made by the Assessing Officer, it does not mean the assessee has concealed inaccurate particulars of income which is resulted in imposition of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has failed to meet the conditions of imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence, the penalty levied, in our opinion, is not sustain....