2024 (2) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal of the Assessee against the Penalty Order, dated 14/01/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: "1) The NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) has erred by upholding the order passed by learned assessing officer and dismissing the appeal filed by your appellant thereby upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 4,54,486/- u/s 271(1)(c) on the Appellant. 2) The NFAC failed to appreciate that the Appellant had submitted all details and documentary evidence in respect of the additions and the addition was sustained purely on an adhoc estimate basis. Hence, no penalty could be levied on the basis of the same. 3) Witho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the addition to 3% of alleged bogus purchases. 5. Since the Assessing Officer had also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer passed penalty order on 14/01/2022 levying penalty of INR 4,54,486/-. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) which was dismissed. Now the Appellant is in appeal before us. 6. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Appellant submitted the issue raised in the present appeal is covered in favour of the Appellant by the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Belgaum reported in 434 ITR 1 (Bombay), as the penalty notice ....