2025 (9) TMI 226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....18-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed by ld.AO u/s. 271A(1)(d)." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual serving as Executive Director in Gopinath Enterprise Private Limited. The assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring a total income of Rs.31,34,370/-, which included exemption from Long-Term Capital Gains of Rs.7,85,654/- under section 10(38) of the Act and Short-Term Capital Gains of Rs.6,01,979/-. Subsequently, a Search and Seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the Kushal Group of Ahmedabad on 05.02....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the part of his AR, until the demand notice was received by the assessee after completion of the reassessment proceedings. It was further submitted that the lapse occurred due to a bonafide mistake and that there was sufficient and reasonable cause, for which the assessee should be protected under section 273B of the Act. The assessee relied on various judicial precedents, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), to argue that penalty should not be levied for a technical or venial breach of law unless the conduct was contumacious or dishonest. The assessee also placed reliance on ITAT decisions, including Sardarmal Kothari v. ACIT, which held that when the assessment is com....