9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have not been decided by the CIT(A) lacks merit. The same has no relevance to the appeal proceeding against the penalty order based on addition sustained by the Tribunal. Such contention made by the assessee, therefore, has been rejected by the FAA in the order impugned before us. The decision on the issue out of which the penalty proceeding has been initiated has already attained finality by virtue of order passed by the ITAT [ 2012 (10) TMI 1119 - ITAT RAJKOT] which is reflecting at paragraph 6 of the order passed by the ITO in imposing penalty. Therefore, asking for adjournment on the plea of rectification application pending before the Ld. CIT(A) seems to be frivolous and misleading, thus, rejected. Assessee s appeal is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstruction on contract basis, filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.6,18,060/- on 29.10.2007. The said assessment proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 29.12.2009 determining total income of Rs.31,23,930/- upon making inter alia addition of Rs.24,90,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loan. Penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for unexplained unsecured loan of Rs.24,90,000/-. A notice dated 29.12.2009 was served upon the assessee. 4. In the meantime, the assessee filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority challenging the quantum proceeding, as a result whereof, the penalty proceeding was kept in abeyance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was separately initiated against the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. During the course of penalty proceeding, show cause dated 29.12.2009 and 09.11.2012 were issued to the assessee as to why the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in regard to the unsecured loan to the tune of Rs.24,90,000/- should not be imposed whereupon on 29.12.2009, the assessee requested for not taking any further step in such penalty proceeding pending appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 7. However, the Ld. CIT(A) though deleted the addition, the same was quashed by the Hon ble ITAT and the order of quantum was upheld as already narrated by us hereinbefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Tribunal and therefore, the application under Section 154 of the Act against the CIT(A) s order contending that some grounds have not been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) lacks merit. The same has no relevance to the appeal proceeding against the penalty order based on addition sustained by the Ld. Tribunal. Such contention made by the assessee, therefore, has been rejected by the First Appellate Authority in the order impugned before us. The decision on the issue out of which the penalty proceeding has been initiated has already attained finality by virtue of order passed by the ITAT on 05.10.2012 which is reflecting at paragraph 6 of the order passed by the ITO in imposing penalty. Therefore, asking for adjournment on the plea of rect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
