TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has been duly dealt with by the Tribunal and relevant findings given at Para 11 of its order and we see no basis to interfere with the same as it would tantamount to review of the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible within the narrow compass of section 254(2) - Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. - M.A. No. 15/JP/2019 (Arising out of ITA No. 1040/JP/2018) - - - Dated:- 21-2-2020 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM And Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM For the Assessee : Shri P. C. Parwal (CA) For the Revenue : Smt Runi Pal (JCIT) ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the assessee against the order in ITA No. 1040/JP/2018 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR. 4. It was submitted that the ITAT Amritsar Third Member Bench in case of HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. Vs. ACIT at Para 21 held that if the AO is not sure at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings of the precise charge as to 'concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income', he may use slash between the two expressions at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings. However, during the penalty proceedings he must get decisive which should be reflected in the penalty order, as to whether the assessee is guilty of 'concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income'. Uncertain charge at the time of initiatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty after sale of another property and therefore, when it came to his notice that deduction u/s 54 is available on purchase of residential property after sale of residential property, he suo moto filed revised computation and paid tax and thus, he claimed the deduction under a mistaken belief has not been decided. The assessee's argument that even if the penalty is held imposable, it should be 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, i.e. ₹ 3,66,680/- as against penalty of ₹ 4 lacs imposed by the AO has also not been decided. Since the above mistakes are apparent on record, it is requested to kindly pass appropriate order u/s 254 of the IT Act. 7. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the order of the Tribunal and submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
