9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rut pertaining to assessment year 2009- 10 on the following grounds:- 1. That the penalty of Rs. 1,27,226/- imposed and confirmed by CIT(A) is against the facts and law and liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee. 2. That the AO as well as CIT(A) has not considered the case laws quoted by the assessee, hence, CIT(A) is in error in confirming the penalty. 3. That the assessee has rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the said penalty order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 14.5.2018 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against the impugned order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that the cash deposited by the assessee was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), but the penalty proceedings a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit of Rs. 17,75,600/- and AO completed the assessment after considering the replies and held that Rs. 7,28,400/- was unexplained income u/s. 69A of the Act. The matter travelled to Ld. CIT(A) and ITAT who vide their respective orders dated 22.12.2016 and 6.6.2017 confirmed the addition and consequently, the AO imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,27,226/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. I find Ld. Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
