TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income. We, therefore, do not see any infirmity into the order of the authorities below. - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 5751/Del./2015 And ITA No. 5752/Del./2015 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2018 - SH. G.D.AGARWAL, PRESIDENT AND SH. KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv., Sh. Sanjay Parashar, Adv. For The Respondent : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR ORDER PER KULBHARAT, J.M. These two appeals by different assessee s against the different order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ghaziabad bath dated 06.08.2015. Since the both appeals have identical grounds and arise from the same transaction. The appeals were taken up together and are being disposed of by way of a consoli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of audi- alterm rules and contravention of provisions of section 274(1) of I.T. Act by the Ld. A.O, even though it was vehemently agitated during appellate proceedings. 6. The likewise, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in brushing aside the failure on the part of Ld. A.O to record his satisfaction, a prerequisite for initiation of penalty proceeding in the assessment order. 7. That in view of above glaring legal lapses/ lacunea, the impugned first appellate order based on illogical and unreasonable grounds is liable to be quashed in the interest of equity and natural justice. 4. Facts in brief are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fide mistake. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 to buttress this argument. He further submitted that the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is defective since it does not specify the charge. On the contrary ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. He reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. 7. We have heard the rival contention perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact in this case are that during the year under appeal, the assessed had transferred her share into a capital asset and did not disclose the capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se and in law in brushing aside the legal proposition that the revised computation cannot be ignored with reference to sections 139(1), 139(4) and 139(5) of I.T. Act on technicalities. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law and on facts in over ruling/over looking various supportive judicial pronouncements in a summary, cursory and cryptic manner without legally valid reasons/ comments. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in law and on facts in discarding the genuine and reasonable plea of the appellant, having zero knowledge of complicated Tax law, that the information regarding sale of property was not elicited at the time of preparation of return by erstwhile Ld. Counsel/ Chartered Accountant. 4. That in doing so, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the year under appeal, the assessed had transferred her share into a capital asset and did not disclose the capital gain arising there from while filing the return of income. The main contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the transaction was not detected by the revenue, it was volunteer disclosure of the assessee during the assessment proceedings. If this contention of the assessee is accepted it would set a wrong precedence as every assessee would take such plea. We, therefore, reject the same. Another argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the AO has not specified the charge. We have perused the notice dated 20.12.2012 issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevance contains to the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
