TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pite service of notice. However, the assessee has filed written submissions. The same are reproduced here-inbelow : "Facts of the case 1. Appellant, an individual filed original return of income on 26/06/2006 declaring Total income at Rs. 1,48,940/-. 2. Before marriage i.e. 10th February, 2002, the appellant was staying in Indore, Madhya Pradesh. After marriage she is staying in Malegaon, Dist : Nashik, Maharashtra. 3. Before marriage she was partner in M/s. M. Mehta & Co, Indore. However, after marriage on 10th February, 2002 appellant shifted to place of her inlaws at Malegaon. Hence, she disclosed Rs. 6,000/- being amount actually received from M/s. M. Mehta & Co. as her professional income in her return of income for the year un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing at Malegaon, Maharashtra, she included the amount actually received from My s. M. Mehta & Co in her professional income. The mistake was bona fide and without any malafide intention. There is also no finding in the assessment order that the appellant was having any guilt mind while filing original return of Income. Therefore, impugned penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c), please be cancelled because the income is offered by the appellant her own and the default was not at all intentional. Grounds of Appeal No. 3 1. It is undisputed fact that the order levying penalty was neither served on the appellant nor was same put into motion for being served on the appellant within the statutory time limit. 2. The order levying penalty is shown t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t at all specified any charge and the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) is issued by the A.O. under both the charges (page No. 1 of paper book). 3. Further, the impugned penalty is also levied under both the charges. 4. Reliance is placed on the decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sanjog Tarachand Lodha vs Income Tax Officer, ITA Nos. 688-9/PN/2014 dated 31/08/2015. 5. The CIT(A) has not addressed the issue in spite of specific arguments made in this respect (page No. 9 to 11. of paper book, more particularly clause No. 4 of page No. 10). On the basis of above submission, I kindly request your honor to delete the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c)." 3. Sabhana Parveen representing the Department vehemently defended the order of Commissioner of....