2022 (10) TMI 1092

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 22.08.2020. The penalty under dispute levied by Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai for the Assessment Year 2016-17 vide order dated 16.11.2018 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The only issue in this appeal is as regards to the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the A.O in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on differential amount of opening WDV of assets as on 01.04.2015 and the closing WDV of assets as on 31.03.2015. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of packaging material. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y 2016-17 and assessee's case was selected for limited scrutin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the A.O only for the reason that there was discrepancy with respect to additions made and for this, the Ld. CIT(A) observed in para 5.2 to 5.2 as under: "5.2 As per the appellant the error has happened at the auditor's office, but it has failed to provide any affidavit or any communication with the auditor which could substantiate the said claim. 5.3 Though the appellant had paid off the relevant tax and interest, it was paid only when it was specifically pointed out to him about the wrong claim. 5.4 The AO in its order has also noted the discrepancies with respect to the additions made and not only the opening and closing WDV balances." Aggrieved, the assessee came in ap....