ITO-13(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. P-CUBE CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in view of information Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in view of information Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in view of information received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had obtained received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had obtained received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had obtained bogus accommodation entry bill bogus accommodation entry bills, the Assessing Officer in the he Assessing Officer in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 12.03.2016 made the addition amounting to Rs.11,30,963/- and 12.03.2016 made the addition amounting to Rs.11,30,963/ 12.03.2016 made the addition amounting to Rs.11,30,963/ initiated initiated initiated the the the penalty penalty penalty proceedings proceedings proceedings for for for furnishing furnishing furnishing inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate particulars of income. particulars of income.

On further appea On further appeal by the assessee against the addition made l by the assessee against the addition made in the assessment order, the Ld. First Appellate Authority partly in the assessment order, the Ld. First Appellate Authority partly in the assessment order, the Ld. First Appellate Authority partly confirm the addition to the extent of Rs.1,41,374/ confirm the addition to the extent of Rs.1,41,374/- (being 12.5% of Rs.11,30,995/-). In view of the part disallowance sustained by the ). In view of the part disallowance sustained by the ). In view of the part disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer issued a fresh show cause notice the Assessing Officer issued a fresh show cause notice the Assessing Officer issued a fresh show cause notice proposing to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee proposing to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee proposing to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee submitted his explanation his explanation before the Assessing Officer before the Assessing Officer, but submissions of the assessee were rejected and of the assessee were rejected and the AO the AO held the assessee was guilty of filing inaccurate particulars under the guilty of filing inaccurate particulars under the guilty of filing inaccurate particulars under the provisions of Act and liable for levy of Act and liable for levy of penalty ranging ranging from 100% of the tax sought to be evaded to 300% the tax sought to be evaded to 300% of tax sought to be evaded. The sought to be evaded. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee had deliberately misguided Assessing Officer noted that assessee had deliberately misguided Assessing Officer noted that assessee had deliberately misguided the revenue by indulging fraudulent method for inflating the the revenue by indulging fraudulent method for inflating the the revenue by indulging fraudulent method for inflating the expenses showing bogus purchases to reduce the income and expenses showing bogus purchases to reduce the income and expenses showing bogus purchases to reduce the income and therefore, he levied penalty @ 300% therefore, he levied penalty @ 300% of tax sought to be evaded tax sought to be evaded amounting to Rs.1,31,052/ amounting to Rs.1,31,052/-.