TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for A.Y. 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 22,46,184/-. In this case assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 10.12.2014 and the total income was determined at Rs. 40,94,012/- inter-alia by making addition of Rs. 18,47,828/- on account of bogus purchases. On the aforesaid addition of bogus purchases, AO vide order dt.28.07.2015 levied penalty of Rs. 5,71,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.30.06.2016 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-2/ACIT Cir/AN/2014- 15) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Agg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not justified merely because the assessee had agreed for the addition. 5. The leaned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that in spite o specific request, the statement of the alleged hawala supplier was not furnished to the assessee and the opportunity to cross examination of the said party was also not granted by the A.O. and hence, the disallowance could not have been made solely on the basis of the said statement and therefore, merely because the said amount was suo-moto offered to tax by the assessee, there was no reason to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the same. 6. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the claim of the assessee was duly substantiated by documentary evidences which were not controverted by the AO and in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therefore relying on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery reported in (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom) submitted that in the absence of proper show cause notice to assessee, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied and therefore urged that penalty levied by AO be deleted. Ld.D.R. on the other hand, supported the order of lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case, penalty of Rs. 5,71,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on amount of Rs. 18,47,828/- being the addition on account of bogus purchases. The perusal of assessment order passed u....