TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the assessee is allowed one more opportunity to explain the reasons for not imposing penalty by the A.O - We set aside the order of the A.O - The assessee is directed to make full compliance of the notice of the A.O. - ITA No. 1951/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2013 - Shri D. K. Tyagi And Shri T. R. Meena,JJ. Shri Sakar Sharma, A.R. Shri Y.P. Verma, Sr. DR ORDER This is an appeal at the behest of the assessee which has emanated from the order of CIT(A)-XVI, Ahmedabad, dated June 1, 2012 for A.Y. 2005-06. The sole ground of appeal is against confirming penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) at Rs. 1,00,023/- for A.Y. 05-06. 2. The appellant filed return of income for A.Y, 05-06 at Nil income on 31.10.2005. In this case, scrutiny assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the net Long Term Capital gain was worked out at Rs. 4,88,000/- on tax of Rs.97,600/-. The appellant was afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard on both the issues before imposing the penalty which has been considered by the A.O., but the same was not found convincing to him. Therefore, he imposed 100% penalty of Rs.1,23,000/- on tax sought to be evaded. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(C) before CIT(A), who had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the ld. A.O. had given reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing the penalty on 21.03.2011. The appellant did not make any compliance of the notice and he did not make compliance to the statutory notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant admitted the mistake before the A.O. and revised the return on same day. He further relied in case of Zoom Communication (Delhi High Court), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Reliance Petro-Chem has been considered. It was contended that in case of Zoom Communciation, the income tax debited in the p l account had not been added back by the appellant. Therefore, Hon'ble Delhi High Court confirmed the penalty u/s.271(1)(C). 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Ld. A.O. specifically held in penalty order as the assessee has furnished "inaccurate of his income and thereby concealing his income to the extent of Rs. 5,47,114/-". The assessee had not filed any reply before the A.O. and the A.O. has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
