9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dated 2nd February, 1997, hereinafter called the impugned order. The challenge by the Revenue to the order of the CIT(A) revolves around the fact that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. The brief background of the present litigation is that the asst. in this case was completed on 22nd Jun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 271(1)(c) were initiated. Show cause notice was issued which was replied to. The reply filed by the assessee to the show cause notice did not find favour with the AO as a result of which the AO was pleased to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, to an extent of Rs. 30,610. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO imposing penalty, the assessee filed an appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was bona fide and unless and until it is dishonestly made, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act cannot be invoked. In the present case, according to the ld. AR, there is nothing on the record which could suggest that the assessee had made his claim mala fidely. 8. We have heard the parties and taken ourselves through the record as well as the order of the CIT(A). It is not in disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
