2025 (11) TMI 815

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows: "1) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied on the additions made on accommodation entries for concealment of income?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) ignoring the fact that the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer after recording his satisfaction and concluding that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3 "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the normal provisions of the Act in its case. The Respondent, therefore, prays that the pen alty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act be cancelled." 3. At the outset, it is seen that the appeal filed by the revenue is delayed by 47 days. Ld. AO has furnished an application for condonation of delay wherein it has been explained as under: "3. In this connection on perusal of the records it is found that the order of Ld. CIT(A) was against the penalty order levied by the AO for the A.Y. under consideration. On perusal of the penalty order it was observed by the then AO that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) it appeared that the issue discussed in the order did not pertain to the A.Y under consideration. There was a mismatch in the date an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,723/- computed @100% on the amount of tax sought to the evaded was levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 21.02.2015, ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue has filed an appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) on which a CO has been filed by the assessee. 5. Before us, ld. DR has submitted that the penalty had been rightly imposed as the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness of impugned purchases and there was credible information received by the department that the party from whom the impugned purchases had been shown, was a hawala operator. Accordingly, the bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 13,00,076/- were disallowed ....