9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDICIAL MEMBER Present penalty appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 12/06/15 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-22, New Delhi for assessment year 2008-09 on following grounds of appeal: "1. That on facts and in the circumstances of law, Lower authorities erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the I.T.Act, 1961 of Rs. 7,93,100/-. 2. That on facts and in the circumstances of law, Lowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order by making ad hoc addition in respect of travelling expenses claimed by assessee incurred for air travel undertaken by Executive Vice President along with other employees. 2.1. Aggrieved by order of Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who upheld addition. 2.2. Accordingly, Ld.AO issued notice under section 271 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 (the Act) for filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer in assessment order has not specified as to under which limb penalty needs to be initiated. 5.1. He submitted that case of assessee is squarely covered by decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in 242 taxman 180. 6. Ld. Sr.DR submitted that assessee has not established its bona fides, and there was no appeal preferred by assessee agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a claim of expenditure, which is not acceptable to Ld. AO. In fact it is found that Ld.A.O. disallowed expenditure on ad hoc basis. This itself shows that there is no dispute regarding all particulars being filed by assessee which is disallowed in part by Ld. AO on premise that it has not been incurred exclusively and wholly for purpose of business of assessee. The Ld. AO has not brought on rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
