2019 (1) TMI 1721

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e : Smt. Priynaka Ahuja, DR ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29.05.2018 of ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana. 2. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Facts of the case in brief are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mb, the penalty proceedings were initiated because he has mentioned both the limbs i.e. the assessee concealed the particulars and furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The ld. CIT(A), however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and confirmed the impugned penalty levied by the AO. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was justified. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has been adjudicated by the ITAT Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi in the case of Aman Mehtani Vs DCIT (supra) wherein one of u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Court: "3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of....