TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t concealed income with the hypothesis that it does. The explanation of the assessee merely remaining disproved, it cannot tantamount to a positive inference that the assessee's contention is false. The impugned order be therefore, quashed. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred and grossly violated the judicial discipline in not following rulings of various courts cited before him. He has not bothered to even refer them or distinguish them or distinguish tem in the body of his order. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the income element has been estimated as it is a no account case and thus in such a situation, the assessee cannot be visited with penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9.2005 of Rs. 3,00,000/- and dated 30.11.2005 for Rs. 4,49,145 were remained unexplained. Thereafter, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the Ld. CIT(A) in turn confirmed the decision of the AO. Accordingly, the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Meerut vide his penalty order dated 28.6.2011 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 has observed that the assessee has concealed the true particulars of his income and levied the penalty at Rs. 5,32,000/-. 4. Against the Penalty order the Assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 18.7.2014 has restricted the penalty to Rs. 3,54,771/- instead of Rs. 5,32,000/- and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akesava Pharmaceuticals (2012) 349 ITR 196 (AP) d) Whiteford India Ltd. (2013) 38 Taxman.com 15 Finally, he stated that penalty in dispute has been levied by the AO and wrongly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is in violation of principles of natural justice, in as much as, without specifying the exact charged on the Assessee, the penalty has been levied on a premise which the assessee was never told and or allowed to meet. He requested that on legal issue the issue may be cancelled. 6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the quantum in dispute has been upheld by the Revenue Authority and the penalty in dispute has rightly been levied by the AO, because the Assessee has not offered any explanation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant lines of para 4.1 of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- "4.1.............From an analysis of the original assessment order, appellate order as well as the penalty order it is clear that enough opportunity to explain the credit entries were given to the appellant at the stage of assessment, appeal and penalty proceedings. The AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has given clear findings regarding concealment of income by the Assessee. The appellant on the other hand has raised the same arguments which he has made before the AO and before the Ld. CIT(A) who decided the case of quantum addition. The case laws quoted by the AR of the appellant are not of much relevance because in this case the Ld. CIT(A) has fou....