9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) -40, Mumbai dated 10.01.2012 confirming the levy of penalty of ₹ 21,230/- imposed by the AO u/s 27(1)(1) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Briefly stated, the assesse, an individual deriving income from house property, business income, capital gain and income from other sources who belongs to Kanakia Group of cases wherein search u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the quantum addition had become final in the case of the assessee. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee has pointed out that the assessee s case is covered by the decision of the ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Subhash M. Patel in IT (SS) A No. 256/Ahd/2012 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 wherein it has been held that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, in view of the fact that the AO has not invoked the correct provisions of law for levying the penalty in the present case, the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the levy of penalty. In view of that matter, the impugned penalty is deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of July, 2013. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
