2019 (7) TMI 667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the same has been levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income and therefore same is bad in law. 2. The ld CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 15,38,496/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO only on the ground that the additions have been confirmed by CIT(A) and on the basis of conclusions drawn in the assessments proceedings without appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant and without proving it to be false. 3. The ld CIT (A) while confirming the levy of penalty erred in stating that the appellant had declared additional income to explain the investment in flat, source of investment remained unexplained without appreciating the facts of the case and s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Act for not getting the books of account audited." (para 2.2 of the assessment order). 4. In the penalty order, the Assessing Officer clearly stated that the levy of penalty is for the default of "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealing income, ......" (page 4 of the penalty order). 5. The CIT(A), relying on the various judgements of the High Court, confirmed the penalty as levied by the Assessing Officer. The contents of para 5.3 onwards of the appellate order are relevant in this regard. 6. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the above extracted grounds. 7. According to the ld. AR, the order of the CIT(A) shall have to be setaside on the legal issue rela....