TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1547
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing 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 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 con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on an addition of Rs. 14,96,939/- for unexplained deposits in the bank accounts 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO under section 143(3) read with 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), vide orders dated 23/03/06 at income of Rs. 20,86,865/-, Rs. 16,18,169/- and Rs. 14,03,710/- respectively. For all years 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, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel submitted that, penalty proceedings were initiated in a perfunctory manner, since notice issued by Ld.AO under section 274, do not specify under which limb, penalty proceedings are initiated. In support of his argument 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ector. 12. Next amount pertains to bank deposit of Rs. 14,14,000/-, which Ld.Counsel submitted that these were monies received as advance from various parties against proposed sale of land. Assessee furnished copies of agreement to sell evidencing 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,....