2025 (8) TMI 1669

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s "Act"] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2009-10 (Rs. 53,272/-), AY 2010-11 (Rs. 18,209/-) & AY 2011-12 (Rs. 32,235/-). 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: AY 2009-10 "1. 'Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act without appreciating that the penalty was levied in respect of quantum addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of purchases from parties debited in the books of account which proved bogus on the basis of information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies arid other facts and material on record wherein the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of purch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....011-12 1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act without appreciating that the penalty levied in respect of quantum addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of purchases from parties debited in the books of account which proved bogus on the basis of information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies arid other facts and material on record wherein the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness purchases from such parties and the assessee failed to discharge his onus 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty merely bec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the following observations: "6. I have gone through the assessment order, the assessment order, grounds of appeal and written submissions of the appellant. The facts of the case are that the AO received information that the appellant had claimed some purchases from accommodation entry providers. Accordingly, AO made an addition of 18.93% of such unverifiable purchases as additional income of the appellant. The CIT(A) reduced the GP rate to 8.75% and confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,09,586/-. The AO treated the same as concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars and levied the penalty of Rs. 18.209/-. Aggrieved by the said levy of penalty, the appellant is in appeal and has raised 4 grounds which are adjudicated as under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tions of the appellant. Admittedly, the AO has disallowed 18,93% of purchases only on presumptions without establishing fully that the appellant has made purchases from grey market. Even, if it is assumed for a moment that the appellant might have purchased goods from grey market, it was not established that the amount of purchases was less than that recorded in the books of account. Under these set of facts, it has to be held that the impugned addition has been made only on estimated basis that too on presumptions only. Hence, by following the decision rendered by the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai, E-Bench in the case of ETCO Profiles Pvt. Ltd. 61 taxmann.com 470 (2015) 1 hold that the impugned penalty is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, the p....