2026 (3) TMI 889

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erred as 'the Act']. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. That, the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) and order imposing penalty of Rs. 16,28,424/- under said section are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The NFAC has also erred in confirming the same. 2. That, the NFAC has failed to appreciate, that, the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as the same is issued without any specific charge, for which the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). 3. That, the NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO of imposing the penalty of Rs. 16,28,424/- u/s. 271(1)(c), which is highly arbitrary and unjustified.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and the same do not justify the additions / allowances made. 3. The brief facts of the case noted by the AO are that the assessee had debited huge expense in the books of account which were not supported by proper supporting evidence. The assessee was asked to produce books of accounts alongwith bills, vouchers and bank accounts to substantiate the huge debits noticed. In compliance to that the assessee produced only cash book, ledger and some vouchers and bank accounts. Other than expenses under the head of telephone expenses, car maintenance, miscellaneous expenses, the appellant also clamed huge expenses under the head labour charges and earth works. It was to the tune of Rs. 17,46,42,737/- against the total labour receipt of Rs. 18,1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dismissed the appeal, against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 4. The Ld. AR has submitted that the penalty order passed by AO is bad in law and without jurisdiction void ab initio and imposed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He also submitted that notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1) (c ) of the Act was issued on the both limbs and the inapplicable portion has not been struck off. Reliance is placed on the following cases: (i) CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (SC) (ii) PCIT v. Gragerious Projects (P.) Ltd. [2025] 475 ITR 546 (DELHI) (iii)PCIT v. Blackrock Securities (P.) Ltd. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 564 (Delhi) (iv) PCIT v. Smt. Baisetty Re....