2019 (2) TMI 354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dered in the case of Mak Data Vs. CIT [2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] , upheld the penalty order. He has given a categorical finding on page No. 13 of his order that assessee has failed to prove the genuineness and bonafides of the transactions in dispute. In the light of the facts of the present case, I find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). - decided against assessee. - ITA No .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee. 3. Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 4. I have considered the submissions of Ld. DR for the Revenue and gone through the orders of the authorities below and material available on record. I find that the only issue in dispute is regarding levy of penalty of ₹ 2,15,400/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (Act). In Page No. 7 of his order, it was noted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X