2021 (6) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. There is no application for adjournment of hearing either. Therefore, we proceed to dispose off the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record. 3. The issue involved in these two appeals is materially identical, except variation in figures, which is arising out of similar set of facts and circumstances of the cases. As a matter of convenience, therefore, both of these appeals are being disposed by way of this consolidated order. 4. The Revenue has also raised a ground with a request that though the present appeals are below the taxable limit as prescri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserved by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has claimed total purchase of Rs. 20,21,986 from the above two parties and the TIN numbers provided by the assessee in the above cases are exactly same as in the information available with the office. The Assessing Officer also observed that the Sales Tax Department has conducted independent enquiries in each of the hawala parties and conclusively proved that the parties are engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries only. In this view of the matter, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee did not purchase any goods from the above mentioned parties and accordingly the entire amount of Rs. 20,21,986, was treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is not leviable. In support of its claim the appellant has placed reliance on various judicial precedents as detailed above. The contentions of the appellant have been considered carefully. The Ld. AO had made the addition on account of bogus purchases u/s 69C of the Act at Rs. 20,21,986/-. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the same to 5% of such purchase/ accommodation entries. The facts of the case suggest that the Ld. AO made said addition on the ground that the appellant could not prove purchases under consideration from the parties concerned. It is also an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted said addition to 5%, estimated/ad-hoc basis. In the case of M/s. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation in ITA No.6617/2014....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal are ALLOWED." 9. 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 ad-hoc 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 and hence cannot be termed as either concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find support from the series of decisions by different High Courts as we....