2018 (4) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case and has arbitrarily held, that the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961, thereby upholding the levy of penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which penalty is bad in law and be deleted. 02. Because there being neither any concealment of particulars of income, nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) is bad in law and be deleted. 03. Because there being no specific charge either for initiation or for levy of penalty, the penalty imposed is bad in law and be deleted. 04. Because the assessee being prevented by sufficient cause in as much as being under bonafide belief that the income being exempt under section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al of exemption certificate from KVIC. Since the application for renewal of exemption certificate from KVIC was pending, the benefit claimed by the assessee under section 10(23B) of the Act was denied by the Assessing Officer and treated the same as mala fide and accordingly he held that the assessee had concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer accordingly imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee has made the submissions as made before the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being further aggrieved, the assessee has preferred thi....