9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the CIT(A), but while citing the judgements and giving their head notes he has not been able to bring on record any similarity of facts between the judgment cited and the present appeal. The case of the assessee is very clear that he has no tangible explanation with regard to unexplained cash deposit which could absolve the assessee from rigour of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) hence, CIT(A) has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. 2. That the AO as well as CIT(A) has not considered the case laws quoted by the assessee, hence, CIT(A) is in error in confirming the penalty. 3. That the assessee has right to add, modify or delete any grounds during the appeal proceeding. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has field his return showing total income of ₹ 1,49,000/- and during the assessment p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that the cash deposited by the assessee was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), but the penalty proceedings are different from assessment proceeding merely addition confirmed does not fulfill the conditions to impose penalty. The AO has not bring any facts that the assessee willfully conceal or furnis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) and ITAT who vide their respective orders dated 22.12.2016 and 6.6.2017 confirmed the addition and consequently, the AO imposed the penalty of ₹ 1,27,226/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. I find Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon various case laws which he also relied upon before the Ld. CIT(A), but while citing the judgements and giving their head notes he has not been able ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
