2020 (10) TMI 1017

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in upholding order of the A.O. levying penalty both for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of additions of Rs. 1,36,00,030/- made under section 68 by the A.O. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that inappropriate words in the penalty notice issued by the Ld. A.O. for levy of penalty are not stuck off and the notice does not specify as to whether the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the accounts of the appellant were duly audited and additions to the capital accounts of the appellant were from the known sources. (iv) The Ld. CIT(A) has also fa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... failed to appreciate that penalty for concealment is attracted if there are clear findings by the Ld. A.O. to hold under which provisions of law addition of Rs. 28,25,138/- was made. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)has erred both on the facts and in law in upholding order of the A.O. levying penalty in respect of additions of Rs. 1,36,00,030/-made u/s 68 by the A.O. and additions of Rs. 28,25,138/- on account of credit entries in Saving Bank account of the appellant before deciding quantum appeal No. 57/IT/CIT(A)-1/LDH/2016-17 of the appellant filed against the order of the A.O. dated 14/03/2016 passed u/s 144 whereby aforesaid additions made by the A.O. have been challenged. 4. The app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sis. He also deleted the penalty on the disallowance and the additions which were considered to be general in nature and were made by the A.O. by passing the exparte assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs. 1,36,00,000/- and Rs. 28,25,138. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal. 7. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that when the appeal of the assessee on the penalty levied by the A.O. under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was filed, the another appeal on quantum addition was pending before the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs. 1,36,00,030/- and the addition of Rs. 27,22,138/- out of the addition of Rs. 28,25,138/-. He furnished the copy of the....