TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce u/s. 148. That the assessee has also paid taxes accordingly. The assessment has been made on the basis of sums already declared by the assessee. In these circumstances in our considered opinion assessee cannot be said to have acted contumacious manner so as to warrant levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We also draw support from case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa [ 1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court ] , wherein as expounded that the authority may not levy penalty if the conduct of the assessee has not been found to be contumacious. Accordingly in the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove penalty of ₹ 2,04,8557- without taking into consideration the appellant's dependence on his consultant for tax compliances as he himself is from financially unsound and uneducated family and studied only upto 3rd standard. 3. Brief facts of the case leading to levy of penalty are as under :- The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2010-11 in FY 2012-13 it was noticed by the AO and pointed out to the assessee that the compensation of ₹ 6,19,750/- received on cancellation of booking of fiat on 23-09-2006 was not disclosed in AY 2007- 08. The assessee has admitted this undisclosed receipt/income and had therefore paid tax and interest thereon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O observed that it was the AO who had detected and brought to the notice of the assessee the undisclosed short term capital gain of A.Y. 2007-08 during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2010-11 and the assessee had never volunteered and paid tax thereon on his own accord. The AO accordingly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of ₹ 2,04,855/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 4. Against the above order assessee appealed before learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
