2021 (6) TMI 1094

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Shamim Yahya, A.M.: This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai ('ld. CIT(A) for short) dated 04.09.2019 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C1T(A) erred in deleting the penalty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peal leading to the conclusion that the assessee has accepted the addition." 3. The issue arising out of the above appeal is the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) with respect to estimated addition for bogus purchase of Rs. 3,53,388/-. 4. The brief facts of the case leading to the levy of penalty are as under:- In this case, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2011 decl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ings, the AO held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars and thus concealed income to the extent of Rs. 21,66,764/-. Therefore, AO levied a minimum penalty of Rs. 7,22,182/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Upon assessee appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that, in appeal for addition, the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the disallowances u/s 14A and ITAT has deleted the disallowances on acc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deleted the penalty with reference to bogus purchase addition at Rs. 3,83,388/-, as the addition was done on estimated basis. 8. We further note that tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by CBDT for filing appeals before ITAT. The Revenue has tried to make out a case that since the addition was made pursuant to information from sales tax department, this penalty appeal falls in the....