2023 (5) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resentation on behalf of the assessee, we hereby proceed to hear the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue and on perusal of the available materials on record. 3. The solitary issue involved in these appeals are the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the issues involved in these two appeals are similar, we hereby pass a consolidated order in both these appeals by taking ITA No. 57/Mum/2023 as a lead case. ITA No. 57/Mum/2023 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the impugned year on 13.10.2010, declaring total income at Rs.33,37,290/- and the return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and the assessmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....furnish any documentary evidences to prove the genuinety of the purchases made by the assessee. The ld. DR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del). 8. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. It is evident from the written submission made by the assessee that the assessee firm had made purchases from M/s. Arihant Steel, amounting to Rs.11,85,715/- which company was alleged to be a hawala dealer as per the information from the Sales Tax Department. During the assessment proceeding, it is observed th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase of CIT vs. Ravail Singh & Co. [2002] 254 ITR 191 (P & H), CIT vs. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [2008] 303 ITR 53 (SC) and the decision of the Pune Tribunal in the case of Laxman Trimbak Gule vs. ITO (in ITA No. 348/Pune/2018 vide order dated 05.04.2021), wherein it was held that no penalty can be levied in case of addition made on the basis of estimate. The assessee further submitted that the assessee choose not to challenge the assessment order in order to buy peace of mind and also for the purpose of co-operating with the revenue department. 9. Upon consideration of the above facts, we are of the view that the impugned addition made by the A.O. was on the basis of the estimation calculated @ 12.5% on the bogus purchase alleged to be ....