TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s carried forward has been reflected by the assessee to the tune of ₹ 33,69,239/-. Non filing of revised return is hypothetical assumption by the Department that the assessee intends to conceal the income which is however not demonstrated by any evidence on record. Hence, this cannot be accepted. Once penalty has been imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-2, Pune dated 21.09.2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. The crux of the grievance of the assessee is with regard to the imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 3. The brief facts of this case are that during assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted for assessment year 2009-10. That even during the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee could have made submissions and admitted the mistake before detection by the Assessing Officer. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that penalty has been imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the case of assessee. However, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the orders of the Authorities below. 7. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. In this case, impugned penalty has been levied on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We have perused the copies of return for assessment year 2009-10 filed before us in the paper book wherein all the details of loss carried forward has been reflect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
