TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 656
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment year 2011-12. 2. The Revenue has also raised a ground with a request that though the present appeal is below the taxable limit as prescribed in the CBDT Circular no.17/2019, dated 8th August 2019, however, the Revenue has prayed for disposing the present appeal on merit. Consequently, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the assessee, we proceed to dispose off the Revenue's appeal on merit. 3. In the present case, the assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers. It filed return of income on 25th August 2011, declaring total income at Rs. 6,47,93,146. The assessment was completed on 3rd March 2014, determining total income of Rs. 6,74,32,940, after making addition of Rs. 26,39,791, on account of unexpl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted default with the meaning of Explanation-1 to provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and is thus liable to be penalized as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 3,15,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the penalty order so passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty of Rs. 3,15,000, imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The relevant observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below for the sake of brevity:- "7.4 Decision- 7.4.1 I have considered the submissions of the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 69C of the Act was made on account of bogus purchases, on the ground that the assessee made a claim which was bonafide and the same was coupled with documentary evidences but the same remained inconclusive for want of confirmation from the suppliers as they could not be traced at given address. Further, the Hon'ble IT AT, Mumbai in the case of Ajay Loknath Lohia in ITA No. 2998/Mum/2017, vide its order dated 05.10.2018 has deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the disallowance/addition made @ 25% on alleged bogus purchases made from hawala dealers based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department and where the appellant had accepted such estimated addition, after holding that though the AO had estimated ....