9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by Ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the same. 2. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his e-return for the financial year 2013-14 relevant to assessment year 2014-15 on 26.11.2014 declaring his total income of Rs. 47,03,010 The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS accordingly notice U/s 143(2) of the IT. Act was issued on 31.08.2015 by the ITO, Wrad-6(2), Jaipur fixing the case for hearing on 12.10.2015. This notice was duly served upon the assessee throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty proceeding U/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing his income. Notice U/s 271(1)(c) read with section Under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 is initiated and notice 271(1)(b) read with section 274 was issued. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A).Before the CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments in written submission in page 2 and 3 of the order. The CIT(A) for the reasons stated in his order has rejected the arguments and submissions made by the assessee. 6. The ld. CIT(A) observed that no reply has been filed or no one attended during penalty proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is no merit in arguments taken by the Ld. AR of the assessee and the AO has rightly taken has a fit case for imposition of penalty U/S 271(1)(b) of the Act. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted documentary evidence of Aadhar Card and the Affidavit dated 14.02.2022 of the assessee for considering as their PAN based at Rajasthan and Registered office at Mumbai. We are of the view that the AO had levied the penalty @ Rs. 10,000/- each for non compliance of notices Under section 142(1) of the Act. As it was clear from the provisions of Section 271(1)(b) that this provision can be invoked only for non compliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
