AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ead as under : 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law the learned C1T(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(l)(c ) levied by the A.O without specifying the specific charge in the Notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c ) of the Act regarding concealment of income or of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Assessment order also failed to specify specific charge for levy of penalty. 3. The learned CIT (A) also failed to appreciate that the disclosure was made in respect of items which were subject to disallowance and there was a bonafide claim made. 4. Penalty is also levied and confirmed on deposit of Rs.l, 00,000/- which was not subject to di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of penalty, we find that assessee has made the following explanation before the learned CIT-A in connection with the additions made contending that there was no case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income: The appellant tor justice prays for a reddresal to delete the entire penalty of Rs. 738068 made on account of the additions of Rs. 72000, Rs. 10118, Rs. 700000 Rs. 100000, Rs. 200000, Rs. 1264000 and Rs. 42450 total of Rs. 2388568. 1 The first addition is on count of the travel allowance reimbursement which is not a income for the assessee but only a re-imbursement For not protracting the same the same was accepted in assessment proceedings but this gives no cause of action for the Ld ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that Rs.Vvi333paymem made after deducting ids of Rs. 33333to Think Tank The balance amount of Rs. 700000 tds has not deducted and it is just an provision of expenses The same is already accepted as addition in assessment proceedings The same entry was also reversed in fy2013-14. 4. There is no such addition of Rs. 100000 in the assessment order on which a penalty-can be justified and survive The Ld AO has grossly erred in the same to hold penalty on this amount and the same be deleted. 5. In regards to the fourth point of Rs. 200000 the same is a cash deposit in bank The entire deposits investments and the cash deposits in the bank were already submitted and reconciled There has been no difference in the same and the Ld ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce and further gone ahead in invoking the penalty proceedings on the same item which is not only bad in law and facts of the case but untenable as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 The extract of the cash ledger showing these entries alongwith the computation of income is also enclosed herewith. In regards to the sixth point is disallowance us 43B of Rs. 42450. The entire tax payables challan copies were already submitted in course of assessment proceedings The ESI payable of Rs. 34220 was already paid before filing the return of income and the Rs. 8230 is not on account of service tax but on account of the TDS which was also paid and the same does not get covered under the ambit of sec 43B disallowance The sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s merely stated that addition has been made in the assessment order and hence, penalty has been levied u/s. 271(1)(c) without specifying in any manner as to on what charge the penalty has been levied. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty for concealment. 9. In these circumstances, the learned counsel of the assessee has pleaded that in absence of proper specification of charge, the penalty levied is not sustainable. In this regard, the learned counsel of the assessee has placed reliance upon several case laws as under: 1) CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factor [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karn); 2) CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery (in ITA No. 1154, 953, 1097 & 1226 of 2014); 3) CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016]....