AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1518
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... her grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,09,766/-, which was imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed her return of income on 31.12.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 1,78,550/-. It is not discernable from the impugned assessment order, whether any scrutiny assessment had earlier taken place or not but 148 notice issued on 29.03.2017, which according to the ld. Assessing Officer was served upon the assessee. Thereafter he passed an assessment order under section 144 read with section 148 of the Income Tax Act according to his best judgment. It is a very brief assessment order, therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The total assessed income of the assessee is calculated as under:- Total Income as shown by assessee Rs. 1,78,550/- Add.: As discussed above Rs. 11,53,930/- Rs. 13, 32, 480/- Assessed u/s 148/144 as above. Interests , if any, is/ are charged as per I. T. Act, 1961. Credit of prepaid taxes is allowed, if any. Demand Notice, Penalty Notice, Computation of income is part of the order. Copy of the order issued to the assessee. Sd/- (Sujit Kumar Garai) Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3( 1), Asansol" 4. According to the assessee, the notice was not served upon her and, therefore, for a quite long period, quantum appeal was not filed before the ld. 1st Appellate Authority. When pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of the quantum proceedings pending before the lower Appellate Authority. We are assigning the reasons for this in the subsequent part of this order. 6. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the re cord. The reasons for reopening have been brought to our notice, which read as under:- "Reasons for the belief that Income has escaped assessment:- Vide letter no. Pr. Vide CIT/Asl/Misc. report/2016- 2017/7965 dated 21.03.2017 along with letter no. DDIT(Inv.)/Kol/NMCE/Report/2016-17/6070 dated 17.03.2017, this office is in the possession of information pertaining to the systematic evasion of taxes by clients/members of the NMCE(National Commodity Exchange) during different financial years by misuse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ete assessment order and a perusal of last paragraph would indicate that it is totally silent for what addition has been made. The ld. Assessing Officer simply observed that he received information from NMCE, Ahmedabad in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act and it appears that the assessee earned profit of Rs. 11,53,930/-. This has been added as profit of the assessee, whereas in the reasons he was of the view that the assessee has booked loss of Rs. 4,64,800/-. It is totally in contradiction to each other. There is no application of mind at the end of the ld. Assessing Officer. It is true that it is a best judgment assessment order but the ld. Assessing Officer is obliged to conduct a proper enquiry and ascertain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "have concealed the particulars of your income against assessment year 2015-16 or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income". 10. A perusal of the above correspondence would suggest that the re is inherent contradiction in the issues of a charge-sheet upon the assessee for which she was required to defend herself. In the title of the show-cause notice, assessment year is mentioned as A.Y. 2010-11, whereas in the body of the notice for which assessee was required to explain her position, the assessment year is mentioned as A.Y. 2015-16. Thus there is no specific charge levied against the assessee by the ld. Assessing Officer in A.Y. 2010-11. 11. The ld. D.R., however, on the other hand, submitted that a re-assessment order....