9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 12.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.40,27,956/-. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 on the ground that there was difference of receipts as per Form No.26AS and Income-tax Return. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 15.04.2016. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted that since the assessee could not obtain the copy of bank statement, therefore, the assessee surrendered an amount of Rs.2,47,395/- as income of the assessee on account of undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed the assessment u/s 147/143(3) on a total income of Rs.42,75,350/-. Since t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling the particulars, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. He accordingly submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer by cancelled. 7. Ld. DR on the other hand strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that by not declaring the correct short term capital gain, the assessee has concealed its particulars and furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 8. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 656 has held that where the inappropriate words in the notice issued for levy of penalty are not struck off and the notice does not specify as to whether the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is liable to be deleted. I find the SLP filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide C.C. No.11485/2016 order dated 05.08.2016. Since in the instance case also, the Assessing Officer has not struck off the inappropriate words and the notice does not specify as to whether the penalty is levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing particulars of income, therefore, in view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
