2013 (5) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... from the order of CIT(A)-XVI, Ahmedabad, dated June 1, 2012 for A.Y. 2005-06. The sole ground of appeal is against confirming penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) at Rs. 1,00,023/- for A.Y. 05-06. 2. The appellant filed return of income for A.Y, 05-06 at Nil income on 31.10.2005. In this case, scrutiny assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act on 20.12.2007. The assessee has shown profit on sale of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch was disallowed and added to the total income and for which penalty proceeding is initiated u/s.271(1)(C) for conealing the income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The assessee carried the quantum addition before the CIT(A), who had considered remand report alongwith Department Valuer Report. After verifying both Government Valuer Report as well as DVO Report, he estimated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore imposing the penalty on 21.03.2011. The appellant did not make any compliance of the notice and he did not make compliance to the statutory notice and reasons why the impugned penalty order was not contested before the A.O. The appellant had not raised the issue on valuation of principle of natural justice before the CIT(A). By not responding the statutory notice issued by the A.O. or to say....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, he requested to delete the penalty. At the outset, ld. Sr. D.R. argued that Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (supra), is not squarely applicable in case of the appellant as there was a remark in audit report about gratuity provision not allowable by the Auditor which had not been added in the computation of income by the appell....