9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under s. 271(1)(c). - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 1024/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 31-12-2014 - SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Sh. K. Sampath, Advocate For the Respondent : S h. Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIII, New Delhi dated 10.1.2013 pertaining to assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her claim that the credits represented settlement of trading in shares, the amount of ₹ 7,04,340/- was assessed at the assessee s income from undisclosed sources. In first appeal, the addition was deleted, but before the ITAT, the addition was confirmed to the extent of ₹ 3,00,000/- and the balance deleted, as the entries pertained to the Assessment Year 1999-00. Show cause notice of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was issued to the assessee for concealment of income, to which no reply was filed. The AO proceeded to levy the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, which worked out to ₹ 90,000/- vide his order dated 30.8.2010. 3. Against the above Penalty Order dated 30.8.2010 passed by the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that the sale and purchase of shares are not genuine. Therefore, there are contrary view has been taken by the revenue authorities, hence, the penalty is not leviable. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative controverted the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and he relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR draw our attention towards the para 38 of the order of the ITAT passed in ITA NO. 1392/DEL/2007 (A.Y. 1998-99) in Revenue s appeal, which the assessee has attached in the 2nd Paper Book and submitted that the ITAT has given its finding that assessee has introduced its income in the bank account as undisclosed money. Therefore, the penalty in dispute has rightly been levied by the revenue authorities in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
