2025 (4) TMI 1621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....taken up in all these appeals are also similar, with consent of both sides, the appeals were heard together and a common order is passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 40/SRT/2024 is taken as the lead case. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee as per in ITA No. 40/SRT/2024 (AY.2011-12), are as follows: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty order in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the penalty is not levia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to 2013-14, wherein he condoned the delay of 6 days in filing the appeal. He, however, dismissed the appeal both on validity of notice and merit of the penalty order. The CIT(A) has dismissed the ground on validity of notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) in para 7.14 at page 24 of the order. In ground No.2, he has discussed and decided the merit of penalty and upheld it by holding that ITAT has confirmed disallowance @ 6% of the bogus purchases. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that in case of the appellant, the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed on 29.12.2018, wherein 25% of the bogus purchase ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... specified the limb of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the notice is itself invalid as held by the decisions of various Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals. 6. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax - Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. He submitted that the case of revenue right from the beginning is that the assessee has shown bogus purchases and thus, furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The stand of revenue is upheld in restricting the addition to the extent of 6%. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should be upheld qua the addition upheld in the quantum assessment proceedings. 7. We have heard both the parties ....