9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, which is specified under section 271(1)(c). The first step is to record satisfaction while completing the assessment as to whether the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed his income. Notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is to be issued to the assessee. AO thereafter has to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for non-satisfaction of either of the limbs. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has to come to a finding as to whether the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the decision of Samson Perinchery [2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 18,47,828/- on account of bogus purchases. On the aforesaid addition of bogus purchases, AO vide order dt.28.07.2015 levied penalty of ₹ 5,71,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.30.06.2016 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-2/ACIT Cir/AN/2014- 15) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of ₹ 5,71,000/-. 2. The assessee submits that the levy of penalty is bad in law since the specific charge on the basis of which the penalty proceedings u/s 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d hence, the disallowance could not have been made solely on the basis of the said statement and therefore, merely because the said amount was suo-moto offered to tax by the assessee, there was no reason to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the same. 6. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the claim of the assessee was duly substantiated by documentary evidences which were not controverted by the AO and in the absence of opportunity of cross-examination of the alleged hawala supplier, the claim made by the assessee was not found to be false and therefore, the explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was not attracted in the instant case and hence, the levy of penalty was not justified. 7. The learned CIT(A) further erred in not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. on the other hand, supported the order of lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case, penalty of ₹ 5,71,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on amount of ₹ 18,47,828/- being the addition on account of bogus purchases. The perusal of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act reveals that in the assessment order AO had recorded satisfaction for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income . Thereafter, in the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, AO at Para 6 of Page 3 held that assessee has concealed the particulars of income a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
