TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income, we are of the view that no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) would be attracted in the present case. We further draw support from the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kirit Dayabhai Patel vs. Act (2015 (1) TMI 201 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) where the Hon’ble High Court has even in the case where income was shown in the return filed u/s. 153 of the Act has held that no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is leviable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T. A. No.3076/AHD/2013 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2015 - SHRI MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT, J.M. SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. For the Appellant : Shri S.N. Divetia, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri B.L. Yadav, Sr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed u/s.250 for the A.Y.2009-10 on 1-11-2013 by CIT(A)-GNR A BAD, confirming the penalty OF ₹ 45.50 lacs levied in respect of income of ₹ 1.20 cr is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously error in not considering fully and properly the explanations furnished and evidence produced before him as well as distinguishing the case laws relied upon by the appellant. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding that the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of income of ₹ 1 .20 cr and thereby the provisions of Sec 271(1)(c) were attracted. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of ₹ 1.20 crores. He submitted that Assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars and therefore the penalty could not have been levied by the A.O. He further submitted that during the course of survey no incriminating material was found. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the ratio of the decisions relied by the A.O and ld. CIT(A) in upholding the penalty are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the present case. He, on the contrary relied on the decisions in the case of Jay Somnath Iron Works ITA NO. 2492/AHD/2012 order dated 21.06.2013, the decision of Vishakhapatnam Bench in the case of Godvari Township Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2014) 45 Taxma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
