TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty order. We noted that the AO has not initiated penalty in respect of any specific charge nor specified any particular charge while imposing the penalty on the assessee. The AO simply observed that the penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Atul Mohan Bindal [2009 (8) TMI 44 - SUPREME COURT ] has laid down that before imposing the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Agarwal For the Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain ORDER Per Shri P.K.Bansal, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-VIII, Kolkata dated 17.02.2012 sustaining the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act amounting to ₹ 1,19,086/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the AO during the course of the assessee added a sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15/- @ 40% ₹ 1,19,086/- Minimum penalty imposable u/s 271(1)(c) @10% ₹ 1,19,086/- Maximum penalty imposable u/s 271(1)(c) @300% ₹ 3,59,250/- To end in justice, I hereby impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) @100% of tax sought to be evaded i.e. ₹ 1,19,086/ on the assessee company for the A.Yr.1996-97 The assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order as well as the penalty order. We noted that the AO has not initiated penalty in respect of any specific charge nor specified any particular charge while imposing the penalty on the assessee. The AO simply observed that the penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Atul Mohan Bindal 317 1(SC) has laid down that before imposin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
