9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing officer has not mentioned in notice U/s 271 (l)(c) under which violation he has issued notice. 2. That in view of the facts and circumstance of the case the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in imposing the penalty of Rs. 4,27,082.00 U/s 271 (1) (c). 3. That, the Provisions of U/s 271(l)(c) are not at all applicable, in the facts and circumstances, because the appellant had neither concealed particulars of income nor had not filed inaccurate particulars of income and the CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the additions are made mere on presumptions and mere change of head of income. 4. That, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessing officer has made the addition of Rs. 13,16,325.00 by treating the rental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as income from other sources. The assessee did not file the appeal against the assessment order as there is no tax evasion. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and imposed penalty of Rs. 4,27,082/- vide order dated 16/7/2018. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee company has already declared the receipt of Rs. 2,40,00,000.00 as Rental Income under the Head of income From House Property and claimed the standard deduction @30% of Rs. 72,00,000.00 u/s 24(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee executed the rent agreement with the tenant, the copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to be taxed under the head of Income from Other sources, therefore, the addition is made due to change of head of income, which is not justifiable for imposing the penalty for the charge of furnishing an inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- a) ACIT vs. Krishna C. Tandon (HUF) in ITA No. 2048/Mum/2016 (Mum. Tri.) b) CIT vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. 33 Taxmann.com 227(Bom. HC) c) Price Waterhouse Coopers vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) d) CIT vs. Societex ITA No. 1190/2017 dated 19.07.2012 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer as well as penalty order and order of CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
