2023 (3) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar 2010-11 imposing penalty of Rs. 53,36,430/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 Brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows: 2.1 A survey proceeding under section 133A of the Act was carried out in the business premises of the petitioner company on 06.12.2010. It was urged during the course of survey that the petitioner company had made investment of Rs.1.57 crores in the property of Gurgaon through Mrs. Sharmila Mahurkar, who is one of the Directors of the petitioner company vide Memorandum of Understanding executed between them with an intention to become major partner of the firm. The case was selected for scrutiny. The petitioner company is averred to have been engaged in the guarding business. As per the preva....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ollect the papers in such a short period and therefore adjournment was sought and also request was made to drop the proposed penalty. However, the Assessing Officer passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act along with notice of demand under section 156 of the Act levying penalty of Rs. 53,36,430/-. This has severely aggrieved the petitioner, who is before this Court with the following prayers: "5. The Petitioner accordingly prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue: a. A Writ of Certiorari or writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing/set aside the Penalty Order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y.2010-11 levying huge penalty of Rs.53,36,430/- without providing re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... According to the respondent, CIT(Appeals) in its order dated 02.05.2014, has discussed the issue of loan and advances and in absence of any documentary evidence and details, the addition of Rs.1.57 crores was made as unexplained investment. 5 We have heard Mr. Hardik Vora, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Nikunt Raval, learned Senior Standing Counsel with Mr.Karan Sanghani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 6 Without entering into the merits of the matter, we notice that there has been a serious flaw in affording the opportunity of hearing to the parties, which has resulted into imposition of huge amount of penalty on 28.11.2022. 7 Notice under section 274 read with section 271(1) (c) of the Act had been issu....