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

....peal 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 proceedings were initiated on a different l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....umbai 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 Ld CIT(A). With regard to the legal issue urge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as 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) (b) CIT Vs. Lakhdhir Lalji (1972)(85 ITR 77)(Guj) (....