2022 (4) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. That under the facts and the law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the order of learned AO levying penalty U/s.271(1)(c) at Rs. 11,15,482/- which kindly be deleted. 2. That under the facts and the law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the impugned penalty order passed by the learned AO which was passed without allowing opportunity to the appellant as the notice issued by the learned AO did not specify the default. 3. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty on account of additions made by the learned Assessing Officer by treating Rs. 27,49,190/- received in advance for supply of goo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Assessing Officer. 4. After disposal of the quantum appeal by the CIT(Appeals), the Assessing Officer vide his order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 24.06.2014 imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,15,482/- qua the aforesaid additions/disallowance which were made by the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment and thereafter had been upheld by the CIT (Appeals). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 24.06.2014 before the CIT(Appeals), but without any success. 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) sustaining the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act has carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. At t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of proper vouchers and verification, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that though the said addition was sustained by the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment vide his order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 254, dated 30.12.2019, however, as the same was merely in the nature of disallowance of expenses on an ad-hoc basis, therefore, no penalty as regards the same could be validly imposed/sustained. Backed by his aforesaid contention it was submitted by the Ld. AR that penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act may be vacated. 9. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the....