TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y appeal of the Revenue was dismissed on account of low tax effect. 2. Sh. Manish Ajudiya representing the Department submitted that although the tax effect involved in the appeal by the Revenue is less than the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 but the appeal by the Revenue falls under exceptions provided in para 10(f) of CBDT letter dated 20.08.2018. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the Department has launched prosecution against the assessee in Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) furnished copy of the criminal complaint filed in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. 3. Per contra, Sh. Himans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the result, M.A. filed by the Revenue is allowed. ITA No. 5384/Mum/2019 (AY-2013-14 6. With the consent of both the sides, the appeal of the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-10, Mumbai dated 10.05.2019 for the A.Y. 2013-14 deleting penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is taken up for hearing. 7. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee is engaged in export of Diamond Studied Jewellery. During the period relevant to A.Y. under appeal, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 5,87,40,062/- from various parties engaged in providing bogus purchase bills. All the bogus parties from whom the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills belonged to Bhanwarlal Jain Group. During the course of search and se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of bogus purchases @ 6%. The Tribunal again confirmed the addition merely on estimations. It is a settled legal position that no penalty can be levied on estimated addition. The ld. AR prayed for dismissing the appeal of Revenue and upholding the impugned order. 9. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of the authorities below. Undisputedly, the additions made on account of bogus purchases were partially confirmed by the Tribunal. The assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the purchases and dealers. During assessment proceedings, the addition was made on estimation @ 12.5%. In first appeal, the addition was restricted to 3% and on further appeal to the Tribunal by the Reven....