2021 (8) TMI 555

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 circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 55,507/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1963 on account of bogus purchases without appreciating that the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transactions with impugned parties which the assessee failed and the assessee even failed to produce these parties before the Assessing Officer when called for as the notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act 1961 issued to such parties were received un-served and it is clear case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961. 2. Though the tax effect is below the prescribed limit, further appeal to ITAT is au....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eated the impugned purchases as bogus and added the amount of Rs. 14,37,072/- to the returned income of the assessee. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the A.O carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who vide his order dated 27.02.2017 sustained the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the value of the impugned purchases. 5. After culmination of the assessment proceedings the A.O called upon the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) may not be imposed as regards the addition/disallowance of the impugned purchase of Rs. 14,37,072/-. In reply, the assessee tried to impress upon the A.O that no penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) was liable to be imposed in its hands. However, the A.O not finding favour ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rities. 9. As is discernible from the orders of the lower authorities the quantum of penalty under dispute is Rs. 55,507/- which is substantially below the threshold limit of Rs. 50 lac as had been provided in the latest CBDT circular No. 17/2019, dated 08.08.2019, that contemplates the tax effect for filing of the appeals by the revenue. It is the claim of the ld. D.R that as the present appeal is covered by the exception carved out in clause 10(e) of the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 (as amended on 20.08.2018) thus, the appeal filed by the revenue is maintainable. 11. Before adverting any further it would be relevant to 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....