9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of appeal:- "1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the impugned penalty order passed by Ld. AO is arbitrarily, unjustly and without basis in levying penalty of Rs. 96,217/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) is, neither on facts or in law, justified in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 96,217/- u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the penalty proceedings had been initiated as per the order of assessment for one default which is furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO was not justified changing over the default while levying the penalty in consequent of such initiation for the default for which penalty proceedings were initiated. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - taken by the AO. This ground is without prejudice to the grounds. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify / amend the above grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble appellate authority. " 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case shows that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of Real Estate. Search u/s 132 was carried out on 30.06.2009. The assessee filed its return of income on 15/12/2011 declaring income of Rs. 7,80,60,630. The assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act was passed on 29/12/2011, wherein computation of capital gain was disturbed. The assessee has disclosed the sale of a building at Rs. 13,16,91,000/- and has shown long term capital gain of Rs. 7,80,78 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly shows that the ld AO has not strike off any of the twin limbs of the penalty. He therefore submitted that the penalty order as such is not sustainable. 9. The ld DR vehemently opposed the above argument. 10. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also penalty notice dated 29/12/2011 wherein obviously the ld AO has not cancelled any of twin limbs on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied. The above issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in case of PrCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Corporation, 432 ITR 84 wherein, it has been held that in para 21 that notice issued by the ld AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
