TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of one appeal. We are, accordingly, narrating the facts, as they appear in the appeal being ITA no.5507/Mum./2019, for assessment year 2009-10, the conclusive result of which will be applicable equally to the other appeal being ITA no.5508/Mum./2019, for the A.Y. 2011-12. 3. Facts in brief:- In the present case, the assessee is a Public Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of gold studded jewellery. The assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 27th September 2009, declaring total income at Rs. 2,58,62,409. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Authorities, the case was re-opened under section 147 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to justify the genuineness of purchases of Rs. 4,82,762 made from M/s. Pooja Trading Company and was also requested to furnish, inter-alia, evidences of transport and delivery of goods purchased from the above party. The assessee, however, failed to provide such details and evidences of physical transport of delivery of goods. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment and passed order on 26th March 2015, determining total in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to offer the additional income, which was accepted as such the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mak Data P. Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 593(SC) while considering the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act observed that the general principles of law in respect of penalty for concealment of income, does not grant the appellant automatic immunity from penalty on account of surrender or M/s. Unisynth Chemicals voluntary disclosure of income. As per the provisions of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the question is whether the appellant has offered any explanation for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the case own hand we find that the requirement laid down by the Hon'ble Court has been met by the appellant inasmuch as, as observed by the CIT(A), the appellant's explanation (supra) which appears plausible and which explanation, though brushed aside by the Assessing Officer as an afterthought, has not been brought out or found to be false in respect offurnishing of particulars. We, therefore, uphold this view of the CIT('A) and consequently uphold her order directing the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate 13 ITA No.4549/Del.12011 particulars regarding the income of the appellant. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars." 6.1.6 The Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Ws Ruchi Developers Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Ahmedabad) I.T.A. No. 3348/Ahd/2011, held that "Coming to the penalty appeal, the Tribunal found that the assessee has placed on record the letters addressed to ITO with account of the alleged bogus party. PAN is also written in case of LJmiya Traders and in case of Maruti Traders. The assessee has also placed on record the confirmations by the concerned parties. The AO made addition on the basis that the assessee failed to produce the parties. However, other details in the nature of PANs and confirmations of concerned parties were furnished. Since the AO has not made further enquiry to verify the correctness of confirmations, the arguments of the Revenue was not accepted under these facts. In the instant case, the addition has been confirmed in the quantum proceedings on the basis that the parties from whom purchases were made, was reported to be left by the postal authoritie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars of income. Thus we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act." 6.1.8 I further reply on following decisions for my view that penalty cannot be levied on addition made on agreed basis. a) CIT v/s Suresh Chandra Mittals (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC). b) CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (Ker. HC) 6.1.9 With the consideration of all the above judgements, it is clear that where appellant has failed to produce creditor parties in respect of alleged Bogus Purchases while he submitted all other details and evidences and additions been made, It was held that where explanation of the appellant has not been accepted by the Department, The levy of penalty is merely on disallowance of expenditure and not finding of concealment of any particulars or mala fide intention to reduce the taxable income. The addition made on this count automatically cannot justify the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c). 6.1.10 In support of my view, further, I would like to placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT in the case of DOT vs Unisynth Chemicals 5967/ MUM/ 2014,held that:- "The Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and Ge....