2007 (5) TMI 264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The grounds of appeal are reproduced below: "1. That the learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,36,507 by AO. 2. It is contended that the assessee was under bona fide belief that requisite approval of CBDT will be received in due course for claiming the exemption under s. 1O(23G) of the IT Act, that a belief constituted reasona....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 10(23G) of the IT Act, 1961 was rejected by the AO because the approval of the CBDT was not received, and, the action of the AO was, therefore, not justified and the learned CIT(A) has erroneously upheld the order of the AO. 3. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is, inter alia, engaged i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....um penalty of Rs. 1,36,507 which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 6. On a careful consideration of the issue, we are of the considered opinion that since satisfaction for the initiation of penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) was not recorded by the AO while completing the relevant assessment under s.143(3) of the IT Act, penalty under s. 271(1)(c) could not be sustained in the case of th....