9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record satisfaction while completing the assessment as to whether the assessee had concealed her income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter, notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Act is to be issued to the assessee - Assessing Officer thereafter has to levy penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act for non-satisfaction of either of the limbs. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has to come to a finding as to whether the assessee has concealed her income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. As in CIT vs Samson Perinchery [ 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] has held that where initiation of penalty is one limb and the levy of penalty is on other limb, then in the absence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and Ld. AO is wrong and bad in law. 2. That learned assessing officer and CIT (A) has grossly erred in law and facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO of imposing the penalty of ₹ 3,17,366/- u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of the payment of commission to agents who did not reply to the 133(6) sent by the department. The payment to these agents were made through banking channel but the appellant could not provide the current addresses of thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the assessee, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after considering the material on record and after hearing the Learned DR. 6. Before me, Learned DR submitted that in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, AO had made addition of ₹ 10,27,074/- and on such addition, penalty of ₹ 3,17,366/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the penalty has been upheld by CIT(A). He supported the order of CIT(A). 7. I have heard the Learned DR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty of ₹ 3,17,366/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the addition of ₹ 10,27,074/- made by AO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
