9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee s wife itself. Hence the assessee claim that the said prices was also being partly used for godown purposes cannot be said to be ex facie bogus. In our considered opinion assessee s conduct in this regard cannot be said to be contumacious warranting levy of penalty. Levy of penalty on account of tax u/s 115 JB under MAT - assessee s claim was that it was falling under 115 JA. This claim wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 - - - Dated:- 3-6-2019 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri. J.P Vairagi For the Revenue : Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh (DR) ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round that assessee s case was falling under section 115 JB. Inasmuch as assessee was not situated in a notified Special Economic Zone. 4. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was also levied on the above issues. The learned CIT-A also sustained the penalty on the ground that the claim of the assessee was patently dubious. 5. Against above order assessee is in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 115 JA. This claim was also supported by the certificate of the auditors. In this view of the matter assessee s conduct cannot be said to be contumacious warranting levy of penalty. If the claim was wrong the responsibility was that of the auditor who duly certified the same. Hence it was a mistake on the part of the auditor and the assessee cannot be visited with penalty for the mistake of its co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
