Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 69 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that:- DR at the time of arguments before us could not point out any factual inaccuracy in the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Sr. DR also could not substantiate his arguments with cogent reasoning that the assessee had either concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is very much evident that the relevant details were very much before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings. ITAT in the case of Sushil Kumar (assessee’s son) had dismissed the Revenue’s Appeal wherein the Department had challenged deletion of addition of quantum by the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order, has rightly observed that two sets of views could not have been possible on some such facts, especially because the impugned agreement to sell was signed by both i.e. father and the son. In view of the factual matrix of the case as well as keeping in mind that divergent views cannot be taken on identical facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Department by upholding the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty in dispute. - decided in favour of assessee
|