2020 (5) TMI 302

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act on account of Concealed income of Rs. 5,18,590 /-. (a) She has failed to appreciate that Assessing Officer has levied the penalty mere on the ground of filing inaccurate particulars, while no particulars were found by him which were filed inaccurate. (b) She has not gone into the merits of the case and merely referred to the applications of the appellant for keeping the penalty proceedings in abeyance. (c) She has failed to understand that the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty on the basis of additions made during assessment without appreciating that the additions made u/s 153A w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. 2435/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 5. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: "1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs. 1, 64,000 /- made by the AO while computing Short Term Capital Gain declared by the assessee because: (a) She has not made any effort to understand that property sold was old property at Karol Bagh, Dariwalan, Sidhipura, New Delhi an its repair was essential for selling the property. (b) She has further failed to appreciate details of account payee cheques paid to various persons for repairing the building which was claimed against Short Term Capital Gain. 2. That the learned Comm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of the repairs undertaken in the property which has been sold for which the Short Term Capital Gains have been offered to tax. The details are as under: S. No. Date of Payment Cheque No. Party Name Amount 1. 05.07.2010 119091 Mr. Mohan Sharma 42,000 /- 2. 05.07.2010 119092 Mr. Anil Kumar 40,000 /- 3. 05.07.2010 119093 Mr. Neeta Sharma 40,000 /- 4. 05.07.2010 209899 Mr. Yogesh Kumar 42,000 /- Total 1,64,000 /- 8. The ld. CIT (A) would have been inadvertently ignored the payments made while confirming the disallowance in absence of anything contra brought by the revenue about the payment of the repair charges to the four persons mentioned above. Hence, we h....