TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 (in short 'the Act') for the A.Y. 2009-10. 2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 27.10.2014 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act ultimately made the additions of Rs. 1,44,31,006/- on account of disallowance qua bogus purchases treated as unexplained u/s 69C of the Act, the addition of Rs. 5,77,240/- @ 4% of the said alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 1,44,31,006/- and the addition/disallowance of Rs. 1,44,310/- on account of disallowance of commission paid estimated at 1% of the bogus purchases u/s 69C of the Act. The AO also recorded the satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and filing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts 3. Stock statement mentioning the use of material from alleged dealers 4. Comparative gross profit chart 5. ledger accounts of the parties and their confirmation 6. delivery challans 7. Partywise details of purchases with name, bill number, date, amount with cheque number, cheque clearing date, check amount, name of bank 8. stock register showing item wise opening stock, inward/outward and closing stock. The AO considered one aspect only that some of the notices u/s 133(6) of the Act issued to the suppliers were returned back. The AO did not make any further enquiry from the banks qua KYC details of the dealers/sellers of goods, which would have proved the existence and genuineness of the dealers, as well as the facts no cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd therefore treated the alleged purchases as bogus and unexplained u/s 69C of the Act. We further observe that the AO made the addition @ 100% on account of alleged bogus purchases, whereas the addition was reduced to 15% of the alleged bogus purchases by the Ld. Commissioner, which was further enhanced to 20% by the Hon'ble Tribunal, which goes to show that there was no certainty qua addition made, on which the penalty has been levied. Therefore, the contention raised by the Ld. Advocate Ms. Dinkle Hariya to the effect that in view of the judicial pronouncements by various courts, penalty is hardly sustainable on ad hoc addition, seems to be logical and tenable. It is also important to mention herein that as submitted by the Ld. Advocate ....