TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement of Mr. Mukesh Chokshi which was never provided to the assessee. It was also pointed out that it is quite possible that Mr. Mukesh Chokshi has not included the transactions with assessee in his statement at all. Incidence of penalty under s. 271(1 )(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do. Considering the smallness of the amount involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 10, Ahmedabad ( CIT(A) in short), dated 22.01.2018 arising in the penalty order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2006-07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions and accordingly the benefit of tax exemption on capital gains arising from transaction carried out through Mahasagar Group was denied to the assessee and the long term capital gain so declared was treated as unexplained income of the assessee under s.68 of the Act as chargeable to income tax. The aforesaid action of AO was also endorsed by co-ordinate bench of ITAT in quantum proceedings. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that it is quite possible that Mr. Mukesh Chokshi has not included the transactions with assessee in his statement at all. 7. At this stage, we bear in mind that incidence of penalty under s. 271(1 )(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do. Considering the smallness of the amount involved, we consider it expedient to give benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
