9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , A.R. For the Respondent : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short "Ld. CIT(A)"), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short "NFAC"), Delhi vide order dated 30.09.2024 passed for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has taken the following g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ." 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 9,09,100/- towards unexplained expenditure made by the assessee through his credit card. Further, the Assessing Officer also imposed penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act on account of default in compliance to the following notices issued by the Assessing Officer: Sl. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment assessment under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act, as he did in the present and not to impose multiple penalties under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, again and again. Accordingly, levy of penalty is directed to be restricted to Rs. 10,000/-. In the case of Tarlok Singh Through Legal Heir Gurnam Singh vs. ITO Ward Gurdaspur 2023 (6) TMI 479 - ITAT Amritsar, while passing the order the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
