2021 (7) TMI 448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 1961, of Rs. 83.418/- without appreciating the facts that the Assessing Officer has correctly held that the assessee has failed to substantiate the transactions claimed in its return of income thereby evaded taxes to that extent. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the act of assessee clearly falls within the ambit of provisions of Explanation-1, to section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee had failed to offer an explanation or which was found by the A.O. to be false. 3. On the facts an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee as a beneficiary had obtained bogus purchase bills of Rs. 18,35,378/-, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings it was observed by the A.O. that the assessee had claimed to have made purchases of Rs. 18,35,378/- from the following two tainted parties: TIN Name to the party Amount (Rs.) 27660591188V Saileela Trading Pvt. ltd. 7,92,608 27070580309V Lahree Impex 10,42,770   Total 18,35,378/- As the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness and veracity of the aforementioned impugned purchase transactions, therefore, the A.O. added the entire amount of the impugned purchases of Rs. 18,35,378/- u/s. 69C of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eedings before us. We, thus, are constrained to proceed with the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, and dispose off the same after hearing the appellant revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. 8. Admittedly, the assessee pursuant to the order of the CIT(A) had been saddled with an addition/disallowance of Rs. 83,418/- as regards the impugned purchases that were claimed to have been made from two concerns, viz. (i) Saileela Trading Pvt. Ltd.; and (ii) Lahree Impex. As is discernible from the assessment order, the aforesaid purchases were disallowed by the A.O., for the reason, that the assessee had failed to substantiate the authenticity of the purchase transactions to the satisfaction of the A.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....agencies such as CBI/ED/DRI/SFIO/Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), and thus, the same would not take within its sweep an appeal filed by the revenue against the penalty imposed on the basis of the aforesaid additions. For the sake of clarity, we may cull out the exception carved out in Clause 10(e) of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 (as amended on 20.08.2018), which read as under: "10. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect:- (a) to (d).................................................................................................................