Sandeep Singh Karhail ORDER
Sandeep Singh Karhail, Member (J)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 07/06/2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11, Pune, ["learned CIT(A)"], which in turn arose from the penalty order dated 31/03/2017 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2010-11.
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:-
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty levied by the Ld. A.O. u/s. 271(1)(c) for Rs. 4,48,381/-.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C\Gamma T(A) erred in upholding the order of Ld. A.O despite the fact that the Ld. AO has not mentioned the specific limb in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 as to whether penalty is proposed to be levied for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of Ld. A.O in levying penalty of Rs. 4,48,381/-on the ground that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. That the appellant craves leaves to add, amend, modify or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Ld. A.O. by confirming the penalty-imposed u/s.271(1)(c) without appreciating the fact that no penalty should be levied where addition is made on the basis of estimation of income.
5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds of appeal."
3. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: The assessee is a contract of civil and interior work which includes external and internal glazing of glass work and providing and fixing aluminium windows. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 14/10/2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,72,47,772. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. On the basis of information received from the Department of Sales Tax, Maharashtra regarding certain parties who are engaged in providing accommodation entries, it was observed that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries and has availed the accommodation entries being bogus purchases. Accordingly, a survey under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the office premises of the assessee. During the survey proceedings, statements of Directors of the assessee were recorded in which they offered to tax additional income on account of non-genuine expenditures over and above the income as per regular books of account. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer ("AO") vide order dated 04/03/2013 passed under section 143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs. 6,28,80,474 to the total income of the assessee on account of bogus purchases on the basis of surrender during the aforesaid survey proceedings. Further, the AO disallowed uniform maintenance allowance claim by the assessee under section 37(1) of the Act. The AO also disallowed the depreciation claimed on television sets installed at t........