2014 (1) TMI 1697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-VIII, Kolkata dated 17.02.2012 sustaining the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act amounting to Rs. 1,19,086/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the AO during the course of the assessee added a sum of Rs. 2,79,000/- in respect of the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. In respect of the loan taken by the assesee from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - To end in justice, I hereby impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) @100% of tax sought to be evaded i.e. Rs. 1,19,086/ on the assessee company for the A.Yr.1996-97" The assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee contended that the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee did not appeal bef .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e imposing the penalty on the assessee. The AO simply observed that the penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Atul Mohan Bindal 317 1(SC) has laid down that before imposing the penalty by the AO the Revenue must comply with the conditions as specified u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X