9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see are reproduced as under: 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)'] erred on facts and in law in not holding that the impugned order dated 22-02-2018, levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. 1.1. That the CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned penalty order was passed without recording requisite satisfaction in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, which is sine qua non for assumption of jurisdiction. 1.2. That the CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the impugned penalty order was passed in undue haste, without affording adequate opportunity of being h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already added in assessment year 2006-07 and consequently, the said addition was completely dependent upon finding in assessment year 2006-07, which has already been deleted and set aside by the Tribunal. 2.5. That the CIT (A) erred in not considering the order passed by the CIT (A), deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 2. At the outset, the learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that the addition in dispute for which the impugned penalty is levied and sustained by the Learned CIT(A), has already been set aside by the Tribunal and the matter has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard and by confronting the assessee with the documents which relates to him. As regards to the legal issue relating to the validity of the assessment u/s. 153A of the Act, it is noticed that the assessee in para 2.20 of his written submissions dated 22.08.2016 stated that the search team had confronted the assessee with unauthentic document. In the present case, it is not clear as to whether any authentic document was confronted to the assessee or not. The Assessing Officer also mentioned that a reference was made on 27.11.2012 but it is not clear for which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
