Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2019 (1) TMI 1462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ling the present appeals i.e. in ITA No.5614/Del/2018, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 06.06.2018 and in ITA No.5615/Del/2018 sought to set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2018 by confirming the penalty order dated 12.05.2017 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), by ld. CIT (Appeals), Meerut qua the assessment year 2009-10 on the identical grounds inter alia that :- "1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dismiss the Appeal in-limine by saying that the appeal is filed beyond stipulated time as per law. 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not provided the opportunity of bearing heard. 3. That the Appellant is a agricu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt reserved the right to add, amends, alter and or delete any of the grounds of appeal 10. That the Affidavit is produced herewith that the assessee have not received the notice" and assessment orders at his address. 11. That the Penalty of Rs. 243600/- has been imposed after completion of assessment. Penalty cannot be imposed after completion of assessment by the assessing officer and during, appeal was dismissed in-limine. The same fact was has held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shadiram Bal Mukund (1972) 84 ITR 183 (All.) and this decision of high court was admitted by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the case of Mohd Murtaza Ali Vs. Income Tax officer Ward 1(4) Meerut and the copy of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Bare perusal of the assessment order shows that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 16.03.2016 and notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 16.05.2016 and 08.08.2016 but due to nonappearance of the assessee, AO made the addition on account of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 10,28,658/- in his saving bank account maintained with Syndicate Bank. From the assessment order, it is also not clear as to what were the reasons, if at all recorded by the AO, for reopening the assessment. Only from the fact that the AO stated to have issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act one can make out that the assessment order has been framed u/s 147 o....