2019 (7) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the following grounds: - "1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 49, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A))) erred in framing an exparte order. the appellants contend that on the more and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CJT(A) ought not to have framed an exparte order inasmuch as, in some confusion. the impugned order has been passed before the date of hearing (15th December, 2017) given by the CIT(A) 2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Conrad Circle 40, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in confirming the levy of penalty of If 26,24,000 under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellants contend that on the facts a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DS certificate. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act resulting refund of Rs. 23,21,903/- on account of TDS which was issued to the assessee. The case was selected for scrutiny, therefore, notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was in the business of trading in shares and securities. The assessee showed the bad debts of Rs. 4,56,62,415/- which was disallowed on account of non-explanation and added to the income of the assessee. The income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs. 36,185/-. Thereafter, the penalty proceeding was initiated and the AO levied the penalty in sum of Rs. 26,24,000/- which was confirmed by the CIT(A), therefore, the assessee has filed the present....