TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR has relied on various decisions to the proposition that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, all these decisions are of non-jurisdictional High Court decisions. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty so levied. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 3108/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 6-5-2019 - Shri G. D. Agrawal, Vice President And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Prabhat Kumar, CA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to the facts available on record; f. The quantum addition does not have any effect on present or future tax liability of assessee company as the reduced returned loss was not allowed to be carried forward on account of late filing of the return of income; g. The penalty order is a non-speaking order; and h. Non filing of appeal against quantum addition does not call for automatic levy of penalty. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred, while upholding AO s penalty order, in a. making observation that t/ze appellant has failed to furnish any evidence in support of its claim that only 18% of the project had been completed in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t challenged the order of the assessment in the appeal as the return income was officially assessed at loss and the same was not in time for carry forward in view of the return of income beyond the prescribed date u/s 139 (1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded his satisfaction in relation to estimation of profits from the advance received from Ansal Properties and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer passed penalty order by imposing penalty of ₹ 2,31,750/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the ITA No. 4913/Del/2015 decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
