9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri K.A. Sai Prasad For The Revenue : Smt. Suman Malik ORDER PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, AM This is an appeal by Assessee against the confirmation of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, ex-parte, by Ld. CIT(A)-2, Hyderabad dated 29-06-2016. There was one day delay in filing the appeal. In the condonation petition, it was stated that the counsel was not available on that day to file the petition in time. Considering the prayer the one day delay in filing the appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted. 2. Briefly stated, Assessee is an individual, and has filed return of income admitting total income of ₹ 4,49,790/-. Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vied penalty, treating the difference in short term capital gain worked out and admitted and calculating the tax sought to be evaded on that, levied a round some minimum penalty of ₹ 1,10,000/-. 4. Even though Assessee contested before Ld. CIT(A), none appeared before CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) without specifying the dates of posting decided the appeal, exparte, and confirmed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Aggrieved Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) conf irming the penalty of ₹ 1,10,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not correct either on f acts or in law and in both. 2. The learned f irst appellate authority failed to appreciate the f act that since the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returned as such and only the carry forward losses have been adjusted. 7. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the A.O. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities. As seen from the assessment order, the fact is that there is no change to the returned income. It is true that the short term capital gain has been reworked out based on the particulars furnished by Assessee, however, admittedly there is some short computation which A.O brought to tax. A.O himself stated in the order as an oversight by Assessee and the difference was brought to tax. Nowhere in the order, how the same was computed was specified. As seen from the grounds before CIT(A), Assessee states that the difference arose due to adop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eans the tas that would have been chargeable on the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished had such income been the total income; ( b) in any case to which Explanation 3 applies, means the tax on the total income assessed as reduced by the amount of advance tax, tax deducted at source, tax collected at source and self-assessment tax paid before the issue of nocice under section 148; ( c) in any other case, means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
