9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ging order dated 26.02.2014, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh, by asserting that the Tribunal has erred in affirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)', Gurgaon, reducing the penalty from 20% to 5%, by raising the followi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the extent of 100% can be imposed and the assessing officer had already taken a lenient view of the mater while imposing penalty of 20%, the reduction of penalty to 5% is not justified. We have heard counsel for the revenue and perused the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the CIT(A). A perusal of the aforesaid orders reveals that discretion exercised by the CIT(A) to reduce penalty t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee and the group was also furnished. Be that as it may, the levy of penalty was due to non-payment of self-assessment tax and assessee did not respond to the show cause notice issued by the A.O. in this regard. Hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case I think it will be in the fitness of things to direct the A.O. to levy penalty @ 5% instead of 20% which is considered a bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
