TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "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 onu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommodation entries of purchases at inflated values from entry provider concerns? AY 2011-12 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 06.06.2024, the appeal of the assessee was allowed by Ld. CIT(A) with 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/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the AO was was justified in levying the penalty, since the addition has been made on estimated basis. 7.3 I find that there is merit in the contentions 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....