9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty to 100%. We find the penalty imposed by the AO @ 200% is arbitrary and excessive. We find substance in the order relied upon by the assessee in the case of LMP Precision Engineering Co. Ltd [1997 (3) TMI 127 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A ] wherein it has been held that a penalty of 100% of tax which the appellant has tried to avoid will meet the end of justice in such cases. Also in view of the fact that the assessee has already deposited the tax, interest and penalty, we decline to interfere with the order of the first appellate authority. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 6300/Del /2013 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2016 - SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Sr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the said ITS details and the said affidavit are furnished on record. During the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee had actually sold two immovable properties namely one on 16-02-2008 bearing property no. II/1 10, Gyan Khand, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad (U.P.) for ₹ 32,50,000/- and another on 11-03-2008 bearing property no. 2nd Floor, 37, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad (U.P.) for ₹ 5,00,000., and not the so called immovable properties mentioned earlier, which were mentioned in the AIR available with the department. After receiving the further information in the present case, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and the assessee was re-assessed under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act vide assessment order dated 21-10-2011. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadi Lai Sugar Mills (168 ITR 7051) wherein it has been held that there may be hundred and one reasons for not preferring and agreeing to additions but that does not follow to the conclusion that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income. Likewise the Hon ble Kamatka High Court in the case of CIT Vs, Manjunath Cotton Ginning Factory (2013 35 taxman com.250), held that the imposition of penalty is not automatic. Even if the assessee has not challenged the order of assessment levying tax and interest and has paid the same, that by itself would not be sufficient for the authorities either to initiate penalty proceedings or impose penalty. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of LMP Precision Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax as reported in (1997) 58 TTJ (Ahd.) 704 :64 ITD 42 wherein it has been held that a penalty of 100% of tax which the appellant has tried to avoid, will meet the end of justice in such cases. In the above mentioned case the assessee had paid the tax only after two surveys were conducted and notice u/s 148 of the Act was served to the assessee. Against the penalty orders dated 27-04-2012, the assessee preferred an appeal with the ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, who was justified in reducing the quantum of penalty to 100% amounting to ₹ 12,66,690, vide her orders dated 24-09-2013. The assessee has fully accepted the observations made by the ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, her said order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
