TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the penalty of Rs.2,46,285/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act by the AO, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. 1.2. In doing so, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the assessee could not substantiate its explanation regarding the various entries appearing in its books of accounts leading to upholding of the addition on account of unexplained cash credits by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore the said penalty u/s.271(1)(c) read with explanation 1 was rightly levied by the AO. 1.3. In doing so, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the ratio of the following judicial decisions where the Hon'ble High Courts have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 16.12.2010 in assessee's own case. He submitted that once any issue has been set aside in quantum appeal, penalty levied on such addition does not survive. He further submitted that as regards penalty levied on addition of Rs.6,50,501/- the said figure is a summation of two amounts, i.e. Rs.5,42,201/- and Rs.1,08,300/-. Out of this addition, he submitted that Rs.5,42,201/- has been set aside by the Hon'ble ITAT to ascertain the creditworthiness of the donor. He submitted that as regards the addition of Rs.1,08,300/-, the said addition has been confirmed by the Tribual in quantum appeal. However, he submitted that the assessee received the said gift from Mrs.Varshaben Patel residing in UK. Copies of cheque of ₤1300 (equivalent t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty can be levied. In support of his contention, he relied on the following case-laws:- Sl.No(s) In the case of .... Reported at... 1. Dinesh B.Thakkar vs. ACIT 5 ITR (Trib.) 120 (Ahd.) 2. A.Rajendra vs. ACIT 127 ITD 361 (Chennai) 3. Puneet Sehgal vs. ITO (2009) 123 TTJ (Delhi) 566 4. Smt.Sadhya Verma vs. ITO 30 SOT 29 (Del)(URO) 4. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the case-laws cited by the ld.counsel for the assessee. We find that the Hon'ble ITAT "A" Ahmedabad (ITA No.338/Ahd/2008 for AY 2004-05 dated 16/12/2010) has set aside the addition of Rs.63,314/- for fresh decision to the file of AO. This fact is not controverted by the ld.Sr.DR. Therefore, the penalty on this ....