TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat is so, the only conclusion is that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and the order of the Tribunal deleting penalty is unsustainable in law - Decided against the assessee - ITA No. 527 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2011 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) in cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) particularly when the A.O. recorded its satisfaction as envisaged u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication as narrated in the appeal are that in pursuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itiated separately. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee took the matter in appeal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] vide order dated 18.11.2003 affirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.3.2005 imposed a penalty of Rs.91,825/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act against which the assessee filed an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n with whom the assessee had no relationship, was a genuine gift and consequently deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The revenue had approached this Court by filing ITA No. 356 of 2006 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Sh. Subhash Mittal) challenging the legality and validity of alleged gift received by the assessee from Shri Sanjeev Gupta, wherein it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
