TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deleting the penalty of Rs. 43,922/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as the penalty was levied on quantum additions made on account of bogus purchase, without appreciating that the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of such purchases by producing such parties before the Assessing Officer and the assessee failed to discharge his onus"? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that the AO has estimated the income without appreciating that that AO has levied penalty, only after verifying the fact that the assessee evaded the taxes on quantum of additions made on account of bogus purchases and the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of such pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Party Bill Amount Rs. F.Y. Hawala TIN 1 M/s. Saj Enterprises 1,46,405/- 2010-11 27960705192V Thereafter, the total income of the assessee was assessed in sum of Rs. 7,04,901/- by including the bogus purchases in sum of Rs. 1,46,405/-. The penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated. The AO levied the penalty in sum of Rs. 43,922/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted the penalty but the revenue was not satisfied, therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE Nos. 1 to 6 4. We have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Representative of the Revenue and has gone through the case carefully. Before going further, we deemed it necessary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra of court decisions which say that where additions are made on estimation, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is leviable, there being no concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case, the purchase had been duly shaven by the appellant in its books of accounts but it could not produce the party from whom the purchase had been made. It is not the case of the AO that the impugned purchases have been proved to be bogus conclusively and there were no corresponding sales. In a recent case before the Allahabad High Cowl in the case of NareshChand Agarwal vs. CIT. 357 ITR 0514 (All), it has been held that: "12. In the instant case, nothing was concealed by the assessee. It was the A. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... P. LW. vs. The A.C.I.T. Central Circle 29. Mumbai has deleted the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on addition made on estimation basis. Likewise, the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in ITA No. 93/Mum/2011 dated 10.04.2015 in the case of Dar 14(2) vs. M/s. RishabhimpexGulabdas & Co. deleted the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on addition made on estimation basis. Further, in a recent decision of Delhi ITAT in the case of Shrift; Fastners Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 49 CCH 0183 Del Trib and ITAT Mumbai in the case of Rakeshkumar Al. Gupta vs. ITO(2017) 49 CCH 0066 Mum Tub, it has been held that where income has been estimated, the appellant cannot be said to have concealed particulars of income Cr furnished inaccurate p....