2024 (4) TMI 1418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) of Rs. 18,42,620/- in order dated 09/03/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. Following grounds of appeal have been raised by the assessee. "1. The ld. A.O., Ward 3(1)(5) has erred in passing penalty order dated 09/03/2018 on facts it is prayed that the addition made cannot be a basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and therefore on merits there is no justification for levying penalty and same may please be cancelled. 2. It is further prayed that even on legal aspect, the penalty proceedings including SCN given by AO are itself bad in law and void and therefore, the order should be quashed. 3. It is prayed that the penalty proceedings are d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment, issued a show cause notice dated 30/01/2018 asking the assessee to file reply on or before 13/02/2018. The Assessing Officer on recording that neither the assessee attended nor filed any reply, levied penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded on the addition restricted by the ld. CIT(A) qua the alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer worked out the penalty of Rs. 18,42,620/-. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before ld CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed statement of facts. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the penalty order and the facts submitted by assessee, confirmed the penalty by referring the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ders of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the penalty to the extent of bogus purchases confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may be upheld. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record carefully. There is no dispute that initially, the Assessing Officer made disallowances / addition of Rs. 4.98 crores on the basis of information of Investigation Wing, Mumbai that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of purchases shown from Ankita Exports and Megha Gems which are managed by Bhanwarlal Jain Group. There is no further dispute that on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the quantum addition was restricted to 12.5%. We find that on further appeal before the Tribunal, the addition instead of....