Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (7) TMI 667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. Without going into the merits of the case, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed by him. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed on legal issue. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.358/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2019 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM And Shri Vikas Awasthy, JM For the Assessee : Shri Suhas Bora And Shri Sanket Bora For the Revenue : Smt. Shabana Parveen ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-7, Pune da .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he additional income which was remained to be disclosed in the return of income is a voluntary and bona fide offer and it is full and true disclosure of all the facts. c) It was seen from the order that no penalty proceedings has been initiated u/s 271(1)(c) in the case of revised return income but has been initiated only on addition of ₹ 1,35,384/- 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is engaged in the business of hiring of vehicles and trading in spare parts. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹ 9,51,98 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ement of making a specific reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act and relying on various binding judgments in the case CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (2017) 392 ITR 4 (Bom.) as well as the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565, Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and the same is wrongly upheld by the CIT(A). 8. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue heavily relied on the orders of the authorities below. 9. We heard both the parties on this legal issue and also perused the material available on record. We find that this is a case where .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates