9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of income. As the above decision covers the issue in favour of the assessee, we reverse the orders of the lower authorities and hold that penalty order issued by the ld AO based on such invalid notice is not sustainable in law - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA. No. 1620/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2021 - SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by : Shri Suresh Gupta, C. A.; Department by : Ms. Vasundhara Upmanyu, [CIT] DR ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI , A. M. 1. This appeal is filed against order passed by the ld CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi dated 09/02/2018, wherein penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of ₹ 96,217/- by the ld ACIT, Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on estimated basis by the Id. CIT (A) ignoring the fact that estimation of income is a process where exact income cannot be computed due to subjective considerations in favour of revenue are taken by the revenue authorities with a view to plug all possible chances of income remaining untaxed due to lower estimation of income. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and in facts in dismissing the additional ground raised by the appellant during appeal proceeding that the Ld. AO has erred in imposing a penalty us/ 271(1 )(c) by computing the quantum of penalty on the basis of tax sought to be evaded which was calculated by subjecting the sustained addition @ 30% whereas correct such calculation was required to be made by taking the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment order, the relief of ₹ 98,25,343/- was given to the assessee on account of capital gain by the ld CIT (A) . Therefore, on the balance sum of addition of ₹ 3,11,384/- the penalty was leviable. 5. Show cause notice was issued to the assessee which was replied by the assessee and submitted that the addition is based on estimated cost valued by the valuer and when that addition is made on the basis of estimation the penalty cannot be levied. 6. The ld AO rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the assessee has concealed/ furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore he passed a penalty order on 28/03/2016 leving penalty of ₹ 96,217/-. 7. This order was challenged before the ld CIT(A) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
