9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) This bunch of seven appeals is by the assessee for Assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09, challenging, imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) against the impugned orders all dated 02/02/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. 2. During hearing of these appeals, none was present for the assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial available on record. For Assessment year 2002-03 (ITA No.3001/Mum/2015), before coming to any conclusion, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant finding from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal):- "3. The appeal of the appellant was fixed for hearing vide notice dtd.16.4.14 on 8.5.4, but there was no appearance from the appellant's side. Another notice dtd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not appeared nor, filed any written submissions. In view of the above, the only conclusion I can draw is that the appellant is not interested to pursue the appeal filed by him. The appellant's appeal against the quantum addition on the issue on which penalty has been levied has been dismissed vide order dtd.13.05.2010. The finding given by the CIT(A) is recorded in para 8.1 of the penalty orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has nothing to say. The reasons for levy of penalty has been elaborated in para 10 of the penalty order. Such type of casual approach of the assessee forces us not to take a lenient view. It is evidently clear that the assessee concealed its income/furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, in the light of the decision in CIT vs A. Srenivas Pai (242 ITR 29)(Kerala). This appeal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
