AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1547
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iased, bad in law and in facts and circumstances of the case. 2) That the Learned CIT (Appeals), New Delhi has grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c) amounting to Rs. 5,76,650/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had neither furnished inaccurate particulars of his income nor concealed his income. 3) That the Learned CIT (Appeals), New Delhi has grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer on deeming addition under section 68 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 19,65,435/-. 4) Without prejudice to the ground no. 2 & 3, the Learned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271( 1 )(c) of the Act on an addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the appellant whereas the actual amount deposited in the bank accounts was Rs. 14,20,354/-. 5). Without prejudice to ground no. 2 and 3 referred to above the Learned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,96,939/- without allowing set off of an amount of Rs. 98,100/- deposited out of declared income. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter and delete the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." ITA No. 15/Del/2015 1). That the order passed by Learned CIT(Appeals) confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1 )(c ) of the Act is biased, bad in law and in facts and circumstances of the case. 2). That the Learned CIT (Appeals), New Delhi has grossly erred in con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s under consideration, Ld.AO made addition on account of unexplained bank deposits/loans including interest amounting to Rs. 19,65,435/-, Rs. 14,96,99/- and Rs. 13,55,858/-. While passing final assessment order, Ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, for concealment of income. 2.1. Thereafter Ld.AO issued notice under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars and thus concealing his income vide notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act dated 30/12/09. 2.2. In meantime, appeal filed by assessee against quantum assessment proceedings before Ld.CIT(A) was dismissed by holding that assessee failed to substantiate his claim of deposits being, out of his agricultural ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgument Ld.Counsel placed reliance upon notice issued under section 274 read with 271 of the Act at page 6-8 of paper book filed today. 8. On contrary Ld. Sr.DR submitted that in assessment order passed, Ld.AO clearly initiated penalty for concealment and therefore non-striking of relevant portions in notice does not vitiate entire proceedings. 9. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 10. In our considered opinion, we agree with argument advanced by Ld.Sr.DR, that Ld.A.O. while passing assessment order initiated penalty for concealment. 10.1. Thus in our considered opinion assessee was aware about under which limb penalty has been initiated. Further it is observed that while passing pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... receipt of amount of Rs. 8,50,000/-from parties concerned, which is placed at page 21-40 of paper book. Ld. Counsel submitted that three parties from whom monies has been received had submitted confirmation to the effect, along with returns filed for assessment year 2000-2001. He submitted that these persons could not be produced before Ld.AO, since summons issued was after 10 years of alleged sale. It was contended by Ld. Counsel that parties who had given advances towards purchase of land, are income tax assessees. Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee filed details of advances received from family members, amounting to balance Rs. 5,90,000/- along with their bank statements at page 41-45 of paper book. Ld. Counsel submitted that, all nece....