TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evant to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. When the matter was called for hearing it was noticed that there was none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the fact that case has been listed for hearing for more than 3 times. On the previous occasion the notice intimating the date of hearing was sent to the address of the assessee which was duly served. It is the trite law that assessee after filing the appeal should be vigilant enough to prosecute the same. But, we find that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed by it. In the absence of any co-operation from the side of the assessee, we don't find any reason to keep the matter pending before us. Accordingly, we decide to proceed to adjudicate the appeal after hearing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act instead of deleting the same in entirety. 5. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in the activity of manufacturing of Ferrous and Ferrous metal. The AO in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27th March 2014, inter-alia, made addition of Rs. 3,06,32,999/- on account of bogus purchases shown by the assessee. The assessee during the assessment proceedings initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, the assessee has not made any reply in response to the penalty notice issued upon the assessee. In the absence of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccordingly, there was no shifting in the basis of the addition made by the authorities below which was subsequently confirmed by the ITAT. Accordingly, the contention of the assessee that the basis of addition has been changed by the ITAT is not correct. 8. Likewise, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Chandravilas Hotel reported in 29 Taxman 492 has confirmed the penalty based on estimated basis. Accordingly, the learned CIT (A) disregarded the contention of the assessee that there cannot be any penalty based on estimated addition. However, the learned CIT (A) directed the AO to levy the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with respect to the addition of Rs. 15,29,6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdingly, we are not convinced with the ground of appeal raised by the assessee. 12.1 With respect to the 2nd issue, we find that there was nothing submitted by the assessee to justify that the penalty order has been passed beyond the time prescribed under the law. The time limit for passing the penalty order is provided under section 275 of the Act. In the given case, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the assessment order vide order dated 25 January 2016, thus the financial year end as on 31st March 2016. Hence time limit to frame penalty order expire as on 31st March 2017 whereas penalty order was passed as on 26th March 2017. Therefore the same is within time limit provided under the provision of law. 12.2 The penalty under the provisions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Generally, the assessee adopts the practice for taking the bogus bills from the market when it makes purchases of the goods from the grey market in cash and without the bills which cannot be accounted in the books of accounts. Accordingly the assessee to bring such purchase of goods in accounting form arranges the bogus bills from the market. Accordingly, the entire amount of bogus purchases shown by the assessee cannot be treated as income of the assessee. What should be brought to tax is the income earned by the assessee whether it was from legal or illegal source. Accordingly the ITAT estimated the amount of profit embedded in such purchases. But the estimation of profit does not lead to draw that the assessee cannot be held under the ch....