TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Sh. Laxmi Narayan, Adv Respondent by : Sh. B. S. Anant, Sr. DR ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal is preferred by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 against order dated 15/11/2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), 8, New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessment proceedings has been initiated against the assessee and assessment order came to be passed on 31/12/2014 wherein an amount of Rs. 7,00,472/- u/s 14 A read wit Rule 8D of the I.T Rules and another addition of Rs. 26,08,661/- since there was difference between 26AS and books of account. As against the assessment order dated 31/12/2014, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll facts relating to the same and material to the computation of total income have been disclosed by him. In the absence of finding by the assessing officer as to cumulative and simultaneous satisfaction of these three condition penalty under section 271(l)(c) read with Explanation 1(B) cannot be levied. Delhi (TAT Bench in case of Poysha Goyal vs. ACIT [2015-ITRV-ITATDEL- 012] has held that no penalty u/s 271(T)(c) could be imposed when all necessary facts were disclosed by the assessee as such it could not be said that the assessed has either concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. ltd. [2012 -ITRVSC- 244] has held that there would be no s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . That the penalty has not initiated vide notice under section 271(l)(c) of the Act without any specific charge, hence, the said notice and the order passed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act are illegal. Bad in law and without jurisdiction. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT-A erred in not deleting the penalty amounting to Rs.8,46,380/- u/s 271(l)(c) where assessee made complete factual disclosure in accounts and returns etc and same is sufficient to knock off the extant penalty and Ld CIT-A has incorrectly decided the said issue on basis of extraneous reasoning. 6. That off the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not deleting the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusive of Rs.26,08,670/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy only) as Interest received on FDRs for the preceding previous year i.e. F.Y. 2011-2012 relating to AY 2012-2013. 6. The above facts makes it clear that the assessee h as paid the tax on the addition sustained by CIT(A) in the subsequent year. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the case of the assessee is not a fit case to impose penalty u/ 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we inclined to delete the penalty imposed by A.O which has been confirmed by the CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the penalty order passed by A.O and also the order of CIT(A) by allowing the grounds of appeal. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
