TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be evaded by the reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, be directed to be paid. Penalty equivalent to the tax sought to be evaded or three times of the tax is to be computed on the addition for which a charge is to be proved that the assessee has concealed the particulars of this income. The addition in the present case is yet to be made. In such a situation, we are of the view that there cannot be any question of computing the penalty unless the amount is determined on which the allegation of evading tax can be levied. We therefore set aside the issue of penalty also to the file of CIT(A) and it is left to the wisdom of CIT(A) who may initiate or not initiate penalty p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act dated 31.03.2017 imposed penalty of ₹ 8,13,93,386/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and had raised the following grounds: 1. The impugned penalty order dated 31-03-2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi [hereafter the Ld. CIT(A)] is invalid and untenable, inter alia, because any opportunity of hearing was not provided to the Assessee. 2. The impugned penalty order is not maintainable inter alia because the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) as well as the impugned penalty order takes all the possible grounds and did not specify the precise or exact default committed by the Assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding. (2) The Ld. AO did not make any addition on the ground of cash deposit in bank account, which as per assessment order is the reason for initiating action u/s. 147 of the Act. (3) The Ld. AO has no pecuniary jurisdiction. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty of ₹ 8,13,93,386/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The observations of the Ld. CIT(A) are against the fads of the case. 6. The penalty order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the facts of the case as well as law. 4. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that the impugned penalty has been levied on the enhancement of income made by CIT(A). He submitted that against the enhancement made by CIT(A), assessee had carried the matter bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
