2022 (1) TMI 725

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessment Years were framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide even dated 21.03.2014. The penalties for all the Assessment Years were levied by ITO Ward 25(3)(4), Mumbai vide order dated 28.03.2018. 2. The only common issue in these three appeals of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty on estimated income in regard to estimation of profit on bogus purchases. For this, Revenue has raised the identically worded grounds in all the three years and the quantum involved in ITA No.5629/Mum/2019 of Rs.72,606/-, in ITA No. 5630/Mum/2019 of Rs.5,16,675/- and in ITA No. 5631/Mum/2019 of Rs.2,40,607/-. 3. The facts and circumstances are a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espectively. The Assessing Officer made total disallowance for bogus purchases at the rate of 100% of the bogus purchases. Aggrieved preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who partly confirmed the appeal by reducing the disallowance at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing as under:- "I have perused the available material on the issue and also gone through the various cases cited by the counsel of the assessee and the ratios of which further substantiate the settled legal position pertaining to levy of penalty is outlined below: (a) The penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings. Before levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the AO has to establish that there was concealment or furnishing of inaccu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ovisions of Section 271(1 )(c). Accordingly, the impugned order of the AO levying the penalty is cancelled and this ground is allowed." 5. However, the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai reduced the addition to the extent of 4.61%, 5.82% and 2% for the Assessment Year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. Further, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty u/2 271(1)(c) on 23.03.2018, for which the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. After hearing both the sides, we noted that the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty for all the Assessment Years by observing as under:- "I have the available material on the issue and also gone through the various cases cited by the counsel of the assessee and the ratios of which further substantiate the settle....