2022 (10) TMI 1160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee has raised following grounds: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order inspite of online adjournment letter has been filed on 23.10.2019 in response to the notice issued on 22.10.2019 requiring us to attend on 23.10.2019. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in N law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of learned assessing officer with regards to levying penalty of Rs. 7,36,300/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in N law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT(A) has erred in confirming the order of learned assessing officer with respect to levying the penalty on account of sale of car parking/transfer fees without considering the facts and case of the appellant company. Further, the said addition has been made mere change of opinion between the Appellant company and the learned Assessing officer for the year under consideration. Further the appellant has already offered full amount in A.Y. 2011-12 which has resulted into double taxation and penalty on such double tax is not acceptable and should be deleted. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of learned assessing officer with respect to levying the penalty on ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....7,36,300, was levied. In further appeal against the penalty order, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order dated 29/10/2019, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative ("learned A.R.") submitted that the penalty in the present case has been levied without specifying the head under which the same has been levied. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer in the notice issued under section 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not specified whether the penalty has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate....