TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 807
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt 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 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 2018, however, the Revenue has prayed for disposing the appeals on merit. Consequently, we proceed to dispose off these appeals on merit. 4. Facts in brief:- In the present case, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 r/w section 147 of the Act on 9th March 2015, assessing the total income at R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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. 21,09,700/-. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. However, the Hon'ble ITAT has restricted the same to 12.5% of such purchases! accommodation entries. The facts of the case suggest that the Ld. AO had made said addition on the ground that the appellant could not prove the purchases under consideration from the parties concerned. It is also an admitted fact that the Hon'ble ITAT has restricted said addition to 12.5%, on estimated/ad-hoc basis. In the case of M/s Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation in ITA No. 6617/2014, the Hon'ble IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he learned Departmental Authorities submitted that the assessee did not purchase any goods from the parties mentioned in the sale bill. The addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department, which had conducted independent enquiries in each of the hawala parties and conclusively proved that these parties are engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries only and accordingly the entire amount of Rs. 21,09,700, was treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. Consequently, learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in directing to delete the penalty. 7. Considered the submissions of the learned Departmental Authorities and perused the material ....