TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That in any case in any view the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That the assessee craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. At the threshold, I note that Registry has raised the objection of shortage of Tribunal fee by Rs. 6007/- at the time of filing the appeal. However, in this connection, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that in view of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna decision dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....completed on 14.12.2009 at an income of Rs. 6,50,720/-. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 22.06.2010 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5.1 Further, the assessee filed an appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) before the ITAT. The ITAT vide its order passed in ITA No. 4246/De1l2010 dated 31.12.2010 restored back the case to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The reassessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 254 on 15.12.2011 at an income of Rs. 6,50,720/- after making addition on account of unexplained cash credit. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT (A) vide his order dated 25.02.2013 in Appeal No. 255/11-12 confirme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the penalty and accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 7. Against the above order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 29.12.2015, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. During the hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 60 having the copy of assessee's reply dated 21.12.2004 filed before AO during the course of assessment proceedings; copy of assessment order dated 4.3.2005; copy of assessee's reply dated 7.8.2009 filed before AO raiing objections to the proceedings u/s. 148; copy of assessee's reply dated 9.11.2009 filed before the AO during the proceedings u/s. 147; copy of assessment order dated 14.12.2009 passed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act; copy of order dated 22.6.2010 passed by Ld. CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reported in (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and stated that the present case is fully covered by said decision and accordingly, requested that the penalty in dispute may be deleted. 9. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below and stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference, hence, the same may be affirmed. 10. I have heard both the counsel and perused the orders passed by the Revenue authorities alongwith documentary evidences filed by the assessee in the shape of paper book and the case law cited by him. From the records, it reveals that the AO levied penalty of Rs. 1,78,500/- passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 31.3.2014. The AO observed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... squarely applicable in the present case of the assessee. In this case vide order dated 17.3.2010 it has been held that the law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meaning of word 'concealment' and 'inaccurate' continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature. 10.3 I f....