Sudhanshu Srivastava ORDER
R.K. Panda, Member (A)
(Through Video Conferencing)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.12.2016 of the learned CIT(A)-22, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2009-10.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is private limited company, engaged in the business of share, commodity trading and investment activities. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2009, declaring loss of Rs. 2,20,67431/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on 30.12.2011 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 26,39,389/-, wherein, he made addition of Rs. 2,47,06,820/- treating unsecured loan of Rs. 2,47,06,820/- as bogus and ingenuine. The addition so made was confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee has concealed its income to the extent of Rs. 2,47,06,820/- willfully and knowingly by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, he levied penalty of Rs. 74,12,046/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.
3. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition by observing as under:-
"7.1. Non filing of complete details/information amounts to suppression of material facts. Order of CIT(A) reflects facts which are different from the statement of facts filed by the appellant. Finding of facts by CIT(A) has not yet been reversed by ITAT. The case laws relied upon by the appellant, do not hold that penalty is not leviable even when there is suppression of material facts. Therefore, the addition made falls under the definition of deemed concealment under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 1961. Therefore, the penalty levied is confirmed."
4. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal:-
1. That the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) and order passed under the said section imposing penalty of Rs. 74,12,046/- since the notice issued U/s. 271 r.w.s. 274 and penalty order passed is illegal, bad in law and v. ague.
2. That no valid satisfaction was recorded before initiation of penalty and as such the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) and penalty order dated 28.03.2014 imposing penalty of Rs. 74,12,046/- passed under said section are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
3. That the penalty order is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction since the AO who has passed the order had no jurisdiction to pass the order.
4. That in the absence of any specific charge against the assessee, the initiation and levying of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) is illegal, bad in law and is liable to be quashed.
5. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that additions made by the A.O. in quantum proceedings on account of unsecured loan being treated as income do not attract penalty provisions.
6. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that addition of unsecured loan received by the appellant is a highly debatable and contentious issue and hence no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can be levied.
7. That the penalty order u/s.