9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J.P.Shah, A.R. Revenue by : Shri T.Shankar Sr.D.R. ORDER Shri Mukul Kr. Shrawat, All these appeals of the Revenue have identical issue pertaining to the deletion of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) by CIT(A)-II, Ahmedabad dated 04/03/2010 by respective three orders all dated 4.3.2010. Since the issue involved is identical, therefore these appeals are consolidated and hereby decided by a commo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereafter suo motu taxed as per the return. Hence the preliminary contention was that the disclosed amount was declared as per the return and thereon taxes were paid which was accepted by the AO as per the assessment order, therefore in the light of Explanation-5 below to section 271(1)(c) since the disclosure has been made u/s.132(4) of IT Act, therefore no penalty should be levied. However, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer and that since the appellant had already paid due tax and interests on the total income returned by him including the disclosed income of ₹ 1 crore, the tax and interests payable in the appellant's case on the date of passing of the Assessment Order worked out to Rs.Nil. As all the above conditions are duly fulfilled, there is absolutely no justification on the part of the A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. In view of these facts and the case laws relied on by the appellant, it is held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying the penalty. Accordingly, the penalty is deleted." 4. Now before us, decisions cited by ld.AR are as follows:- (i) Asst.CIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF [2012]210 210 Taxmannn 244/25 214 (SC) (ii) CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
