TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ORDER Per Shri Kul Bharat, JM The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals)-I, Jaipur dated 20.11.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- " That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred seriously in law in sustaining penalty levied by the ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty order has been passed against a dead person. It was submitted that the assessee had expired on 24.05.2010 and the penalty order has been passed without bringing the legal heir on record on 27.4.2011. In support of this contention the ld. Counsel has relied upon the following decisions :- Shri Kishan Agarwal vs. DCIT, Sikar (ITA No. 69/JP/2013 of ITAT Jaipur.) Bhagwansingh Shriramsingh L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gone through the orders of the authorities below. The revenue has not controverted the fact that the notice for initiation of penalty proceedings was issued after the death of Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal. It is also not rebutted that the penalty order was passed in the name of Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal on 27.04.2011 when Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal had already expired on 24.05.2010. The Coordinate Bench ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess than Rs. 1,00,000/-, except in one year which it is marginally higher than Rs. 1,00,000/-; (iv) the additions are based on mere rejection of explanation. It is quite evident that penalty has been earned for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In other words, the element of penalty is linked with the contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. Penalties a....