2019 (1) TMI 795

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not valid as the Assessing Officer did not strike off the inappropriate portion of the notice. The Assessing Officer ought to have struck off the inappropriate portion and indicated to the appellant the applicable portion in the notice. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in holding that the appellant concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and further erred in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 2,67,840/-. 4. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the amount of minimum penalty is not worked out correctly by the Assessing Officer as the same wou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ponse from the assessee in respect of the discrepancy between Form 26AS and Form 16, AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act bringing the entire receipts as per 26AS and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of 2,67,840/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the A.O.'s decision vide para 5.3 of his order and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, assessee filed the present appeal before us. 5. Before us, Learned Counsel for the Assessee briefly narrated the facts of the case and bringing our attention to the paper book filed before us, he read out the relevant paras from the written submissions made at page 6 of the paper book. For the sake of ready reference, t....