2017 (4) TMI 822

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty of Rs. 5,16,894/- relying upon the impugned penalty order is liable to be quashed. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty just because the appellant did not contest addition made in assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in imposing penalty on the basis of the additions made in the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 21.11.2011 ignoring the fact that the addition made in the assessment order by wrongly invoking the provisions of Section 41(1)(a) of the Act only on the basis of personal judgement of the AO and the same are debatable additions. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....andise Corporation And M/s Nimbus Communication ltd., assessing officer asked the assessee to show cause why liabilities in respect of these parties be not treated as ceased in view of provisions of section 41(1)(a) of the Act, as he failed to file supporting confirmations from these parties. In response to this, it was submitted by the assessee that submissions have been filed by him in respect of M/s International Merchandise Corporation vide letter dated 10.10.2011 and submissions in respect of remaining two parties were made through letter dated 21.10.2011. The submissions made by the assessee have been made part of the penalty order (para 3), which were considered by the Assessing Officer. After going through the submissions of the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d was calculated at Rs. 5,16,894/- and minimum penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded was calculated at Rs. 5,16,894/- and imposed vide penalty order dated 22.5.2012 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Against the above penalty order, the Assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 24.2.2014 has sustained the penalty. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. A.R. of the assessee has stated that the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in confirming the action of the AO in levying the penalty of Rs. 5,16,894/- relying upon the impugned penalty order which needs to be quashed. She further stated asseessee did not contest the addition made in the asse....