9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(Appeals), who had rightly vacated the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and uphold the same. Decided against revenue. - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member And Shri Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None. For the Revenue : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR. ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM : The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.06.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) dated 13.02.2022 for the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: 1. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, the Id. CIT(A), NFAC is justified in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO amounting to Rs. 2,26,861/- for concealment of income whereas the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Sanjay Aggarwal Vs CIT reported in [2011] 15 taxmann.com 34 (Punjab Haryana)/[2012] 211 Taxman 178 (Punjab Haryana)(MAG) it was held that Assessee made disclosure during assessment proceeding under section 131(1) on 5-1-2006 and offered to surrender amount attributable to him in investment in property. It was held that no immunity could be claimed by assessee from levy of penalty in terms of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed her original return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 05.10.2012, declaring an income of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that she had disclosed in return of income filed u/s. 148 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) observed that the income from the sale of shares, which the assessee had earlier claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act, was included by her in the return of income filed in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which, thereafter was accepted by the A.O. Based on the aforesaid facts, the CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the additional income offered by the assessee in her return of income could not be subjected to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Apart from that, the CIT(Appeals) was of the view that the A.O., while initiating penalty proceedings, had failed to men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was called for in her case. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals), backed by his aforesaid observation, vacated the penalty of Rs. 2,26,861/- imposed by the A.O u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. The revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has brought the matter in appeal before us. As the assessee-respondent, despite having been intimated about the hearing of the appeal, had failed to put up an appearance before us; therefore, we are constrained to proceed with the matter as per Rule 25 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, and dispose of the appeal after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short DR ) and perusing the material on record. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
