TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-11 and A.Y. 2011-12. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, the same, thus, are being taken up and disposed off by way of a consolidated order. We shall first take up the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 wherein the impugned order has been assailed on the following grounds of appeal before us: "1. The Assessing Officer has not specified the charge under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated and levied i.e. whether the penalty is initiated and levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. 2. The A.O. had made addition at the rate of 100% of the value of alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) had reduced addition on account of alleged bogus purchases at the rate 12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness and veracity of the aforesaid purchase transactions on the basis of supporting documentary evidence to the satisfaction of the A.O, the latter therein added/disallowed the entire value of the impugned purchases of Rs. 19,61,934/-. After inter alia making the aforesaid addition of bogus purchases, the A.O, vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 27.03.2014 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 88,62,570/-. At the time of culminating the assessment the A.O also initiated penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. "Show cause‟ notice (SCN), dated 27.03.2014 was issued to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition to the extent of 12.5% of the aggregate value of the impugned purchases. Resultantly, the addition to the extent of Rs. 2,45,241/- (12.5% of Rs. 19,61,934/-) was sustained by the CIT(A). 5. After the order of the CIT(A), the A.O called upon the assessee to explain as to why the penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) w.r.t the addition made towards the value of the impugned bogus purchases of Rs. 2,45,241/- i.e to the extent sustained by the CIT(A) may not be imposed on him. As the reply filed by the assessee did not find favour with the A.O therefore, he imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 83,358/-, vide his order dated 15.03.2018. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) before the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 hypothesis that the amount does not represent concealed income as with the hypothesis that it does. If the assessee gives an explanation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the part of the assessee, then merely because the said claim was not accepted or acceptable to the revenue would not by itself attract penalty under Sec.271(1)(c). Now, in the case before us, as the revenue had failed to disprove to the hilt on the basis of clinching documentary 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 under Sec. 271(1)(c) could have been validly imposed on the assessee. In fact, the restriction of the disallowance of entire purchases made by the CIT(A) to 12.5% of the aggregate value of such purchases speaks for itself that the disallowance sustained in the hands of the as....