9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by AO ignoring the show cause reply as well as the bona-fide disclosure made by the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in holding that the assessee did not seek protection under Section 50C(2) of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings and in concluding that the case laws relied upon by the assessee were not required to be differentiated for the factual matrix in present case. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in not giving due importan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that basis of imposing penalty is based upon estimation. He contended that it is evident from the fact that Ld.CIT(A) had reduced the quantum addition on the basis of DVO's report. He contended that no penalty can be levied if the addition is made purely on estimation basis. He further reiterated the submissions as made in the synopsis and also relied on the case laws cited therein. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. I have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the assessee's books of account. It is also seen that while dealing with the assessee's objections on the DVO's report, the AO has relied only on the comments of the DVO in response to the assessee's objections but has failed to give a final finding on the issue. Thus he has not dealt with the assessee's objections properly. This might have served the Revenue's purpose in the quantum proceedings but when it comes to imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and/or concealment, utmost caution has to be exercised. The Department has not been able to substantiate as to how there has been furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and/or concealment by the assessee when the AO has himself not brought any cogent materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, having regard to all the facts of the case as discussed above, we are of the view that considered from any angle, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable and the learned CIT(A) was fully justified in cancelling the same. The impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is, therefore, upheld dismissing this appeal filed by the revenue." 8.1. Further, the reliance is placed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Lahsa Construction Pvt.Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 671 (Delhi) wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that "addition cannot be justified solely relying upon the valuation report". 9. In the light of above-mentioned binding precedents, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
