TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Umang Luthra, Adv. For the Respondents : Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER Prashant Maharishi, Member (A) This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-20, New Delhi, dated 18.03.2019 wherein the ld. CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the levy of the penalty of ₹ 6,09,970/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) levied by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 63 (3) New Delhi, dated 29.09.2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead with section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the AO despite the fact that the AO has passed the penalty order without specifying the allegation whether the penalty is being levied for concealment or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty despite the fact that there is neither concealment nor furnishing the ina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 6,09,970/-. The order of the penalty was further challenged by the assessee before the ld. CIT (Appeals), who passed an order on 18th March, 2019 dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The ld. CIT (Appeals) confirmed the penalty for the reason that the original assessment containing the above addition was also confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). Thus the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR submitted that since the quantum addition on the basis of which said penalty proceedings were initiated and on which the penalty has been imposed has already been deleted by the co-ordinate bench and further the appeal against the order of the co-ordinate bench cannot be preferred by the Revenue in view of low tax effect, the deletion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
