9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Revenue By: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT (D.R) ORDER PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Bangalore passed under Section 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The Brief fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A with M/s. Brigade Enterprises Limited and with M/s. Rainbow Properties found that there is no disclosure of share of profit from co-owner properties where the assessee has 1/7th share being Rs. 7,51,226 and determined the total income of Rs. 1,18,97,756 and passed order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act Dt.24.2.2014. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord and prayed for allowing the appeal. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of CIT(Appeals). 5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the sole disputed issue as envisaged by the ld. AR is in respect of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the quantum app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to the AO for fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the tribunal in the case of the present assessee in its order for A. Ys. 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 and in the case of the co owner. We find that the direction was this that the AO should reexamine the claim of expenditure incurred in leveling of the plot or otherwise relevant for the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
