2014 (6) TMI 534

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er dated 18.12.2012 of the CIT(A), Meerut pertaining to 2005-06 assessment year challenging the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.81,925/-. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee returned an income of Rs.98,206/-. However the AO in 143(3) proceedings after requiring the assessee to explain that why receipt of salary from a foreign emp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of India for the period 1994-95 to 2004-05 were filed. It was submitted that the assessee had stayed in India only for 846 days (173+84+134+149+69+113+124) thus the stay was more than 730 days. However the said submission was not accepted as the grounds raised were considered to be vague and the contention in regard to the status it was held should specifically have been challenged by way of gro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ought on record. He sought to invite attention to Paper Book page No-14 which is a chart showing the residential status of the assessee considered right from 2004-05 Financial year to 1994-95. It was his prayer that either the penalty may be quashed or the issue may be restored for bringing the relevant evidences on record as simply because the addition was not challenged does not mean that penalt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee in the penalty proceedings despite there being no challenge to the addition in quantum order necessarily has to be considered on merit in the light of the matrix within which the penalty provisions are required to be examined. On considering the settled legal position it is also held that there is no bar to the assessee to raise a new contention argument or proposition in the penalty proce....