9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out any discrepancy about the undisclosed or concealed income of the assessee. Considering all the impugned penalty levied by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified. Accordingly, the same is deleted. This finding has been given by considering the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, it is made clear that it may not be considered as a precedent in the other cases. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP And SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A Revenue by : Sh. Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Addl. CIT ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dt. 28/08/2018 of Ld. CIT(A)-3 Ludhiana. 2. Following grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ludhiana on 12.10.2015 12.10.2015 Notice u/s 142(1) issued on 08.04.2016 08.04.2016 Reply to notice u/s 142(1) dt. 08.04.2016 filed on 27.04.2016 24.06.2016 Order u/s 143(3) passed on 04.08.2016 28.10.2016 Date of deposit of tax 12.10.2015 12.10.2015 5. In his rival submissions the Ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the observations made in the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the ITAT Chandigarh 'SMC' Bench in ITA No. 1472/Chd/2018 in case of Smt. Neelu Garg Vs. ITO vide order dt. 26/04/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act dated 29.9.2015) that a recomputation of taxable income was filed, wherein an amount of ₹ 37 lacs was surrendered under the head 'miscellaneous income' , which is evident from page Nos.9 to 11 of the assessee's Paper Book, which are the copies of the reply, computation income and copy of challan in respect of tax and interest amounting to ₹ 12,55,871/- , deposited on 12.10.2015. It is not iced that the A.O. got the Investigation Report from the Principal CIT- I , Ludhiana vide letter dated 24.2.2016 that there were certain brokers in different towns, who contacted the prospective clients and took paper book entries, this fact has been mentioned at para 3 of the assessment order dated 28.10.2016. However, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the penalty imposed under sect ion 271(1) (c) of the Act . 11. By following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court , the ITAT Chandigarh Bench A in the case of Ajay Sangari Co. Vs. Addl .CIT (supra) held as under: 10. The AO and the CIT(A) had placed reliance on the ratio laid down in the case of Rajesh Chawla (supra ). On the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Court, the assessee was found to be a member of group known as M/s. Baldav Electricals, Ludhiana against which information was received by the Intelligence Wing that the members of the group were indulging in tax evasion by showing income from other sources as agricultural income. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
