2024 (8) TMI 172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 13,50,147/- stating that addition made by the AO is on the basis of estimation without considering the fact that the AO established that the purchase is non genuine and then case to estimation of profit by rejecting the books of assessee. 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 13,50,147/- without appreciating the fact that the purchase was not genuine and purchase parties has accepted these facts in their statement before sale tax authorities and notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) to all the six purchase parties returned unserved and assessee could not produce those parties during the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....planation. Therefore, the AO observed that it was a fit case to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 of the Act. The assessing officer has levied penalty of Rs. 13,50,147/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee after following decision of ITAT, Mumbai holding that penalty is not leviable in respect of addition made by the assessing officer on estimation basis. 5. Before us, the assessee has filed written submission and submitted copy of order of the ITAT in respect of quantum addition wherein the ITAT has dismissed the appeal of the revenue against the order o....