2016 (5) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent 18/02/2016 ORDER This appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the order of the CIT (A)-10, Ahmedabad, dated 19.08.2015. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. 2. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 1,62,420/-, imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing assessment u/s 143(3) on 11.11.2013. However, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of the said addition. The assessee furnished explanation vide reply dated 18.11.2013 and 26.05.2014. But, the Assessing Officer rejected the said explanation and levied the penalty. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. 4. Aggrieved by the confirmation of penalty by the CIT(A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....prior detection by AO disclosed the mistake excess cost of acquisition taken while computing LTCG in the return of income. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld penalty of Rs. 1,62,420/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) by AO. 3. 1The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in observing that the appellant did not admit till he was concerned by AO. ....