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

....h Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Pronouncement 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 t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee and assessed the same while completing 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. Ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs of income. On the contrary, the appellant had suo motu had without 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 e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g Officer which clearly point out the share of the assessee. Thus, there was no attempt on the part of the assessee to hide or conceal anything relating to this claim. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer was not justified in imposing penalty. Reliance is placed on the decision of Reliance Petro Products P Ltd, reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC), wherein it is ....