2016 (9) TMI 1266

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by Ld CIT(A)-41, Mumbai confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,33,002/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2007-07. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld A.R raised a legal issue, viz., whether the assessing officer is entitled to levy penalty on another limb of sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act when the penalty pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e was considered by the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Dharni Developrs Vs. ACIT (2015)(61 taxmann.com 208) and the Tribunal has held that the penalty order cannot be sustained. 5. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has failed to offer proper explanations in terms of Explanation 1 to sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly he supported the order passed by....

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 particulars of income". Hence the assessee has contended that the impugned penalty order is not sustainable. We notice that an identical issue was considered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Dharni Developers (supra), wherein the contention of the assessee was accepted by following the decisions rendered in the following cases:-  (a) K.Bhatia Vs. CIT (1992)(193 ITR 379)(Guj) ....