9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ackground and the tax effect involved we are of the opinion that it was not a fit case of levy/confirming the penalty. See Mahavir Irrigation Pvt.Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 21 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntional, that the same should be condoned. The application for condonation of delay is accompanied by an affidavit of the assessee wherein she has reiterated the above facts. Considering the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application and the affidavit, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3.Effective ground of appeal is about penalty levied us.271(1)(c)of the Act, amounting to ₹ 49,558/-by the AO for filing inaccurate particular of income. Return of income, declaring total income of ₹ 1,68,174/-,was filed by the assessee on 27.10.2004.The assessment was completed u/s.143 (3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and interest on borrowed capital of ₹ 1,40,98 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellate proceedings, that she had furnished inaccurate particulars of income invoking the provisions of sec.271(1)(c).The AO levied penalty of ₹ 49,558/-. 3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him, the assessee argued that she was not conversant with accounts and taxation matters, that she had filed return of income as per advice given by her chartered accountant, that she had not concealed any income while filing the return, that she had paid interest on loans totalling to ₹ 32.40 lacs including loan from Bank of Punjab Ltd., that she had invested money in purchasing the premises at Mulund also, that Mulund property was let out in the next asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
