9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up the assessee's appeal for Asst.Year 2006-07, i.e. ITA No.869/Ahd/2013 as lead case. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- All the grounds of appeal in this appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld.AO in levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs.1,00,000 on the ground that the appellant is deemed to have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income even if the appellant has disclosed the unaccounted income in the returns filed subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the AO has not given a specific finding whether the penalty has been levied on concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He drew our attention towards para-9 of the penalty order dated 17/03/2011. 5. On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the order is well-reasoned. He drew our attention towards para-10 of the penalty order. 6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) while passing the impugned order has discussed various case-laws in his order. Further, we find no force in the contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to notice u/s.153A plus an amount of Rs.60,000 (Rs.1,401 for AY 2008-09) added to the returned income being the bonus income on maturity of investment in Post Office Monthly Income Scheme (being the income on account of capital gains for AY 2008-09) on the respective grounds(s) that: i. The additional income was not disclosed in the returns originally filed u/s.139 and the appellant has failed to establish that such omission was a bona fide mistake and not deliberate. ii. The appellant has failed to furnish any explanation in respect of the above additions (Rs.60,000) (Rs.1,401 for AY 2008-09). The impugned levy of penalty being bad in law and in facts is requested to be cancelled. 2. The Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Ahm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
