TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Shri Pranshu SInghal, CA For the Respondent : Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ), Delhi dated 20.03.2023. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in the eyes of law as well as on the facts of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty in gross violation of principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient opp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the facts and circumstances of the case, the said action of the Id. CIT(A) is bad in law in upholding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the act ignoring the fact that penalty proceedings are independent of the assessment proceedings. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) so imposed without giving any findings on the merits of the case regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal. 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that income tax return filed by the assessee on 23.05.2012 declaring total income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned penalty cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the notice issued by the Assessing Authority dated 18.12.2019 does not disclose the specific charge. He submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. He further reiterated the submissions as made in the synopsis. The relevant contents of the synopsis are reproduced as under for the sake of clarity:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- NFAC dated 20.03.2023 passed u/s 271(1)(c) wherein the penalty of Rs. 61,61 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Versus Income-Tax Officer, ITA 36/DEL/2021, dt. 31.10.2022 - Acit Versus M/S. Noesis Industries Ltd., I.T.A. No. 7327/DEL/2018, dt. 06.12.2022 - Babita Khurana V. Dcit, ITA Nos. 3217 And 3218/Del/2018, dt. 26.04.2023 - BLK NCC Consortium V ACIT, I.T.A. No. 8802/DEL/2019, dt. 21.10.2022 - Ekshad Ahmad Patodi, Us Nagar Prop. M/S New Hind Agency Versus Acit, I.T.A. No. 76/DDN/2019, dt. 16.12.2022 - Ms. Bits Information Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd. V. ITO, I.T.A. No.9803/DEL/2019, dt. 21.10.2022 - Maneesh Kansal V. ITO, I.T.A. No. 6400/DEL/2019, dt. 02.12.2022 - Virender Kumar Khosla V. Acit, I.T.A. No. 8228/DEL/2018, dt. 13.12.2022 5. Further, the addition of Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 3,45,482/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
