TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Facts in brief:- In the present case, the Assessing Officer for the year under consideration completed the assessment vide his order dated 30th March 2015, determining total income at Rs. 13,43,44,477, as against the returned income at Rs. 9,87,27,550. In the assessment so made, the Assessing Officer made disallowance on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs. 3,56,16,927, being 100% of such bogus purchase made from 25 parties who had indulged in issuing the bogus purchase bill. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The assessee being aggrieved by the assessment order so passed by the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shed beyond doubt that the aforesaid parties did not supply any goods to the assessee and issued accommodation bills without actually delivering the goods or service. The Assessing Officer was convinced with the submissions made by the assessee and hence, he was satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, on the basis of disallowance on bogus purchase of Rs. 28,94,354 (restricted the disallowance by the Tribunal @ 8% of the total bogus purchase amounting to Rs. 3,56,16,827). In this view of the matter, the penalty of Rs. 9,69,000, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee being aggrieved, filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 3. The lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence drawn by it that the assessee obtained the bills from hawala suppliers at a higher price. It is seen that this factual inference has been made on the basis of the surrounding circumstances only and there was no positive evidence to, show that the appellant did not make purchases from the said hawala suppliers from whom the bills were obtained and had instead made the purchases from grey market. This aspect is evident from the observation of the Hon'ble Tribunal that no specific adverse material has been brought out by the AO that the impugned purchases are bogus though said purchases remained unverified. Further, though it was stated by the AO that the concerned hawala operators had made a statement on oath before the sales tax aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed imposition of penalty on various grounds and placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements which we have duly considered. We find that first of all Section 69C could not be applied to the facts of the case as the payments were through banking channels which were duly reflected in the books of accounts and therefore, there was no unexplained expenditur1 within the meaning of Section 69C incurred by the assessee. Further, we find that the assesee was in possession of purchase invoices and various other documentary evidences qua these purchases. A bare perusal of the purchase invoices reveals that the assessee has purchased consumables etc. from the alleged bogus suppliers, which are connected, at least to some extent, with tile busine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c) of the Act. This ground of appeal is therefore allowed." 4. The Revenue being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) filed appeal before the Tribunal 5. Considered the submissions of the learned Departmental Authorities and perused the material on record. As it appears, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimation basis without adducing any evidence on record for concealment of income. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to be imposed only where the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Action of making addition on ad-hoc basis does not result into imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ....