Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

Penalty upheld under Section 271(1)(c) for bogus purchases; assessee must prove claims in income return

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The ITAT upheld the AO's imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for bogus purchases, affirming that the onus lies on the assessee to substantiate claims made in the return of income. The CIT(A)'s acceptance of non-compliance as justification for non-submission of details was rejected to prevent setting a detrimental precedent. Given the assessee's failure to furnish necessary particulars during assessment, penalty, and appellate proceedings, the AO's determination of bogus purchases was sustained. Additionally, despite disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in computation, the assessee did not reflect this in the ITR, justifying penalty imposition. The ITAT relied on precedent emphasizing deterrence against inaccurate returns and reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was allowed, confirming the penalty levy by the AO.....