TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Baroda, order dated 03.09.2010 for A.Y. 2004-2005. The sole ground of appeal is against deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs. 38,200/- by the CIT(A). 2. The A.O. found during the course of assessment proceeding that assessee had shown interest income of Rs.1,84,448/- and claimed deduction ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- which is taxed sought to be evaded was imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who had observed as under: "2.3 Having considered the facts of the case, I find that the appellant had made incorrect claim about interest income which was taxed as other income. There cannot be two views possible in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and A.O. was directed to verify and levy minimum penalty as per law. 4. Now the assessee is before us. None appeared on behalf of assessee but written reply has been filed which is being considered for disposal of this appeal. It was submitted that interest was paid by the assessee on borrowed fund were genuine expenses and the same were allowable. The funds were borrowed in the capacity of ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st and the expenditure incurred for earning interest at any time during the course of assessment proceeding. He further relied in case of Balaji Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) 290 ITR 172 (Kar.) & CIT vs. Inden Bislers (2001) 118 Taxman 766 (mad.), for intention to conceal the income. Thus, he prayed to delete the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A). At the outset, ld. Sr. D.R. supported t....