9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue are against two separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-I, Rajkot, both dated 14.03.2013, cancelling the penalty of Rs. 9,74,938/- and Rs. 9,98,219/- levied by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 9,74,938/- for the Assessment Year 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng given by the Assessing Officer in the penalty order and the submission of the appellant. If find force in the contentions of the appellant. I also find that the A.O. in a hasten to levy penalty has overlooked the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT in its order dated 24.04.2009 and also failed to consider the consolidated returns filed by the appellant as noted by the Hon'ble ITAT in the said order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all such returns are filed within time and accordingly directed the A.O. to verify office records and then determine carry forward loss, if any and as a corollary allow set off of loss of one unit against profit of another unit. Thus, only after giving appeal effect, the A.O. can pass any penalty order on additions remaining, if any. In view of the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. CIT(A) should have confirmed the penalty as the assessee made wrong claim of carry forward loss from HUF owned family business of Rs. 14,06,400/- for the Assessment Year 2004-05 and Rs. 30,52,259/- for the Assessment Year 2005-06. 4. After hearing the ld. Departmental Representative, we have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is pertinent to note that in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
