2012 (1) TMI 367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar dated 01-07-2010 for assessment year 2005-06. 2. The ground raised in the appeal is in respect of cancellation od penalty ₹ 2,01,960/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a doctor practicing as gynecologist. The survey u/s.133A was carried out on 8th and 09th September,2005. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of Sudarshan Silks & Sarees vs. CIT reported in 169 Taxman page 321 that if in pursuance to a search assessee filed its revised return declaring additional income as estimated by the search party and such return was accepted in toto, still penalty was not leviable. Similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sureshchandra Mittal reported in 251 ITR page 9. The case relied .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... income. It is also submitted by the ld. A.R. that on similar facts in other years penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has not been initiated. The ld. D.R. on the other hand, relied upon the order of AO. 5. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties, record perused. We find that the CIT(A) has followed the judgment of the Apex Court and others. The Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Moi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X