2018 (12) TMI 1810

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....c. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, without looking into facts and circumstances of the case and relying on irrelevant judicial pronouncements. 3. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence." 2. Briefly stated that facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : on the basis of completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') a total income of Rs. 17,15,945/- was assessed by making addition of Rs. 2,12,000/- u/s 56(vi) . During assessment proceeding it was noticed by Assessing Officer that the assessee has shown....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of the case, order passed by the lower Revenue authorities and arguments addressed by the ld. AR to the parties, the sole question arises for determination in this case is :- "as to whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income during assessment proceedings while interpreting the provisions contained u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act." 7. First of all, We have noticed that AO has not recorded valid satisfaction in order to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Perusal of para 4.1 on page 3 of the assessment order shows that the Assessing Officer has merely recorded that "action u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated on this score". From the entire assessment order it is not discernible ....