9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chers - AR argued that no penalty is maintainable for non-furnishing the details as the assessee truly disclosed the transaction of the sale consideration and disclosed long term capital gains - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) on examination of the same, restricted the addition to the extent above which clearly establishes that the assessee succeeded in part before the ld. CIT(A) by producing relevant evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umar, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 22 days. On p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an extent of ₹. 9,55,706/-. 4. The ld. AR Shri R. Kumar, Advocate submits that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition to an extent of ₹. 9,55,706/- for want of vouchers and the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. The ld. AR argued that no penalty is maintainable for non-furnishi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 9,55,706/- as against the addition of ₹. 1,11,44,117/- for want of evidence supporting the expenditure. The ld. CIT(A) on examination of the same, restricted the addition to the extent above which clearly establishes that the assessee succeeded in part before the ld. CIT(A) by producing relevant evidence in support of claim of expenditure. On perusal of the penalty order, the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
