9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cancelled. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA Nos. 266, 267 & 268(Asr)/2014 - - - Dated:- 27-5-2016 - Sh. A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And Sh. T.S. Kapoor, Accountant Member For the Appellant : S/Sh. K. R. Jain Sudhir Mehra, Advocates. For the Respondent : Sh. A.N. Mishra, DR. ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM : These are the assessee s appeals for the assessment years 2001- 02, 2002-03 2004-05, against the action of the ld. CIT(A), in confirming the concealment penalties of ₹ 3,55,900, ₹ 6,25,291 and ₹ 49,678/-, respectively. These appeals were heard together as similar facts and issues are involved and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The brief facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m that the assessee had earned the amount from genuine dealing in shares and not through accommodation entries and in response to the same, after a long drawn process, the assessee surrendered the above entries. The AO accordingly, levied penalty of ₹ 3,55,900/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty. 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO imposed penalty in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. He submitted that the AO has not recorded a clear cut finding in the assessment order for imposing the penalty, as to whether the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income, or had furnished inaccurate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sanna Bhatacharya vs. ACIT , in ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 ( ITAT, Kolkata Bench) 5. The ld. counsel further pleaded that in view of the jurisdictional Punjab Haryana High Court decisions in the case of CIT vs. Munish Iron Store (supra) and CIT vs. Shere Punjab Agricultural Works, Bhagta Bhai Ka (Rampura Phul) dated 18th May, 2007 in ITA No. 210 of 1997 (copies placed on record before the Bench), which have been followed in a number of cases by this Bench, including Vishal Filling Station vs. A.O. in ITA No.66(Asr)/2007, where on identical facts penalty has been cancelled, the impugned penalty may be cancelled. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the impugned order. 7. We have heard both the parties and have gone through t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
