9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under: "i. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the concealment penalty of Rs. 2,60,323/- without appreciating the facts of the case. ii. The appellant craves, leaves to add/alter any other grounds at the time of hearing." 3. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR represented the department. 4. It is noted that this appeal was listed on earlier occasions wherein also none appeared. Since the appeal is of 2018 relating to A.Y. 2001-02, we are inclined to take up the matter for adjudication, ex-parte qua the assessee with the assistance of ld. Sr. DR. 5. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is governed by Portuguese Civil Code and assessed at 50:50 by virtue of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed for Rs. 2,60,323/- by the ld. AO. 7. Aggrieved by the penalty so imposed, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 8. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee made a submission dated 28.06.2018 for each of the addition and the basis on which penalty was levied ld. CIT(A) analyzed it on merits and gave his findings in a tabulated form which is reproduced as under: 8.1. On perusal of the above table and the observations made by the ld. AO in his assessment order while dealing with each of the items of the additions on which penalty has been levied, we note that except for item at serial no. 7 for Rs. 1,00,828/-, at serial no. 9 for Rs. 4,120/-, at serial no. 10 for Rs. 7,260/- and at serial no. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan vs CIT (2001) 118 Taxman 324 (SC) and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Shanti Ramanand Sagar vs CIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 72 (Bombay) and in the case of Palkhi Investments & Trading Co. (P) Ltd. vs ITO (2016) 71 taxmann.com 322 (Bombay), confirmed the penalty imposed by the ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee 9. Considering the detailed, meritorious and fact based findings given by the ld. CIT(A) after analyzing the submission filed by the assessee, more particularly where the assessee himself has not preferred any appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) on certain additions which were confirmed at the First Appellate Stage, we do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
