9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act cannot be imposed, has to be accepted, as such a plea is based on the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the Assessee. We, therefore, hold that imposition of penalty in the present case cannot be sustained and the same was rightly cancelled by the CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 359/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2019 - SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. For the Respondent : Ms. Mrinalini R., Advocate ORDER Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the revenue against the order dated 20.09.2017of the CIT(Appeals), Davangere relating to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d belonged to various parties for whom he was to purchase SF seeds. Later on, the Assessee offered to tax the sum of ₹ 75 lacs as his income and paid taxes thereon by filing a revised return. It has been the stand of the Assessee that notwithstanding the fact that the sum of ₹ 75 lacs was offered to tax, it was for the reason that the Assessee was not able to produce the parties from whom he received the sum of ₹ 75 lacs and not for the reason that it was his money from sources which he could not explain (unexplained money). 5. It is in respect of the aforesaid addition, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s.271(1)( c) of the Act and penalty was levied by the AO by order dated 31.5.2012. In the appeal filed against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn is filed u/s 139(4), no revised return u/s 139(5) can be filed as also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT 220 ITR 67 (SC). 6b. In view of the facts, I hold that levy of penalty has no legs to stand. Thus, the ground succeeds. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Davangere, is opposed to the law and not on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeal) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO purely on technical grounds without giving reasons as to how the declaration was voluntary by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act was filed before us and perusal of the same reveals that the AO has not struck out the irrelevant portion in the show cause notice and therefore the show cause notice does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether the charge is of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein the Hon ble Karnataka High Court, following its own decision in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565, took a view that imposing of pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
