TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1759
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee against the order dated 24/06/2016 passed by CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- " 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of Ld. A.O in imposing penalty of Rs. 41,125/- u/s 271(1)(c) and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without appreciating the facts a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the additions of Rs. 10,00,000/- and confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,33,088/- stating that the assessee did not pressed for the ground No. 3 of the appeal as the issue of addition of Rs. 1,33,088/- on account of deduction claim was under section 24(b) of the Act. 5. The penalty proceedings were started u/s 271(1) (c) and the A.O imposed penalty of Rs. 41,125/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt proceedings. From the notice dated 28.12.2011 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows. The extract of the Hon'ble Karnata....