TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 692
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. At the outset, we may like to mention that despite notifying neither anyone put in appearance on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought on behalf of the assessee. In the circumstances, we were of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and therefore same were heard ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative. 3. We have heard submission of the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the relevant material on record. In these cases, disallowance has been made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the bogus purchases and which has been partly upheld by Ld. Fisrt Appellate Authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able to the revenue that itself would in our opinion not attract the penalty u/s 271(1) (c). In the instant case the facts of the assessee are quiet similar. From the Penalty order dated 30.03.2018, it is gathered that Ld. CIT(A), Thane has estimated the profit from Hawala purchases. However, assessee has failed to give true information regarding total purchases of Rs. 87,87,645/- made from hawala operators. Hence, quantum of bogus purchases is not being estimated here. It is only the profit embedded in the total bogus purchases which is reasonable arrived at by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars for a fixed amount of purchases leading to inaccurate particulars assessee's income. In my opinion, from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty u/s 271(1)(c) is clearly attracted. In view of the above discussion and circumstances, the penalty imposed by the A.O. in his Order dated 30.03.2018 for A.Y 2010-11 is confirmed and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed." 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is before the Tribunal challenging the levy of penalty. 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee mainly argued that all information was duly provided in the return of income filed and there was no inaccurate particulars. According to the assessee only estimated addition has been upheld and therefore no penalty was leviable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Petro Product P. Ltd. (supra). The Ld. CIT(A) however held that assessee made a w....