2025 (8) TMI 1642

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... similar issue on identical fact, therefore, for the sake of convenience both these appeals are adjudicated together by taking the ITA 2742/M/2023 for A.Y. 2011-12 as lead and its finding will be applied to the other appeal mutatis mutandis. ITA No. 2742/M/2023 (A.Y. 2011-12) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty of Rs. 5,55,197/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being alleged tax sought to be evaded solely on the basis of order passed u/s 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act without proving furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty even though the notices issued by the AO u/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the purpose of condonation of delay should be interpreted with a view to do even handed justice on merit in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merit. In the light of the above facts and findings, we consider there appear to be bonafide cause for delay in filing the appeal, therefore, we condone the delay of 304 days in filing this appeal in order to decide the appeal on merit. 3. Fact in brief is that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department through DGIT(Inv.) that assessee has obtained accommodation entries of bogus purchases from 8 parties to the amount of Rs. 1,93,55,303/-. During the course of assessment, the AO stated that asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eard both the sides and perused the material on record. Without reiterating the fact as discussed above, the assessing officer has levied penalty of Rs. 5,55,197/- being hundred percent of the tax determined on addition of Rs. 24,19,413/- made on the basis of profit estimated @ 12.5% of the impugned bogus purchases. In the case of the assessee, it is clear from the copy of the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act filed in the paper book that assessing officer has not striked off non-applicable portion in the printed show cause notice to indicate the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which the penalty proposed to be imposed. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT 434 ITR 1 held that non-striking off irre....