9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(1)(c) of the Act. We accordingly set aside the levy of penalty levied by Assessing Officer and that was confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). Thus, the ground of the Assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 7055/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2022 - Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: The present appeal filed by assessee is directed against the order dated 21.08.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Muzaffar Nagar relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances, 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 issues are debatable. 4. That, the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction, regarding concealment of income in the Assessment Order passed. 5. That, the explanation given evidence produced, material placed and available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the penalty imposed U/s 271 (1)(c) at Rs.14,17,600.00. 6. The addition/disallowance has been made merely on the basis of rejection of explanation of the appellant and no material has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 248 (SC) and Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565. However, CIT(A) did not agree with the contention of the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty by following the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kaushaliya (1994) 75 Taxmann 549 (Bombay). 6. Learned DR submitted that the levy of penalty has to be seen after considering overall conduct of the assessee. He, thus, supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have considered the Learned DR and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241(Kar), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 11485 of 2016 by order dated 5th August, 2016. 22. On this issue again this Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. 9. Before us, Revenue has not placed any material to demonstrate that the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has been stayed/set aside/overruled by higher judicial forum. Further, Revenue has also not placed on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
