2022 (9) TMI 838

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot partly confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Coo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uly served upon the assessee asking for assessee's explanation on levy of penalty. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and therefore the ld. A.O. levied a minimum penalty of Rs. 32,932 u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assesse filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as follows: 5.2 Thus the contention raised by t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rounds: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty U/s. 271(l)(c) of Rs. 32,932/-. The penalty needs deletion. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming penalty U/s. 271(l)(c) of Rs. 32,932/- against the specific decisions of the Hon. Supreme Court and also of the Hon. Gujarat High Court though citen before him. Non acceptance of the same appears disreg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng levy of penalty. The penalty needs deletion. 7. The penalty order being bad in law needs cancellation. 8. Without prejudice the penalty order having been passed beyond limitation prescribed needs cancellation. 9. Taking into consideration the legal position, statutory aspects and facts of the case no penalty ought to have been levied. The same deserves cancellation. 4.1. None appeared on....