9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. That on the facts of the case as well as in law, learned CIT(A), NFAC, has erred in upholding the penalty levied of Rs.8,24,790/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The penalty so levied by ld. AO and upheld by Hon'ble CIT(A) is wrong, unjustified and contrary to the law. Appellant prays for deleting the same. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify any grounds of the appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), filed his return declaring of Rs.2,00,990/- on 19.02.2013 for assessment year 2012-13. Subsequently on the basis of information received from Investigati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has paid the tax on such income before providing reasons of reopening and return of assessee filed under section 148 of the Act, which was accepted without any addition. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer by taking view, had the proceedings under section 147 of the Act not been initiated, the assessee was not going to offer the correct income for taxation. The Assessing Officer levied penalty @100% of tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved by the order of levy of penalty the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The case of assessee migrated before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). Before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed similar submission as submitted in response to notice issued under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer was not justified. To support his submission, Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the case laws of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2017] 80 taxmann.com 162 (Guj)/[2015] 280 CTR 216 (Guj)[03-12-2014], Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad-IV vs. Whiteford India Ltd. [2013] 38 taxmann.com 15 (Guj)/[2013] 219 Taxman 98 (Guj)(Mag.)[24.06.2013] and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnal vs. Rajiv Garg [2008] 175 Taxman 184 (P&H)/[2008] 313 ITR (P&H)/[2009] 224 CTR 321 (P&H)[22-07-2008]. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 7. I have considered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on on act of assessee of having offered additional income in revised return and had failed to take any objection that declaration of income made by assessee in his revised return and his explanation were not bona fide, penalty imposed upon assessee, was not justified and had rightly been set aside by appellate authorities. 9. Further, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel (supra) also held that return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A is to be considered as return filed under section 139 for purpose of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and penalty is to be levied on income assessed over and above income returned under section 153A, if any. Further Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
