| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3469 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271(1)(c)
Where AO imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) due to disallowance on account of bogus purchases, penalty was liable to be deleted because, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed on ad hoc addition.
|
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Validity - Imposition of penalty due to ad hoc addition made in relation to disallowance of bogus purchases -
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposed on assessee on account of disallowance of bogus purchases. CIT(A) deleted penalty by holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied on ad hoc addition. Held: CIT(A) while passing his order followed order of Tribunal in Chempure v. ITO and Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT. Since it is now settled position under law that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on ad hoc addition, thus, order passed by CIT(A) was affirmed.
Followed:Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. Dy. CIT (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 51 (Mum Trib.) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1242 (Mum-Trib) and Chempure v. ITO (2010) 40 SOT 164 (Mum-Trib) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1920 (Mum-Trib).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2011-12
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|