2026 (1) TMI 591

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. There was delay of 51 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. It was submitted that the assessee is a Senior Citizen and his son had met with an accident and suffered fracture which required prolonged hospitalisation and surgery. Due to this fact, he could not verify the Income Tax Portal which led to the delay in filing these appeals. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing these three appeals is condoned. 3. As the facts involved in these three appeals are identical, all these matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the same of c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... First Appellate Authority which was decided by the CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 7. Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: - "1. The Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 9,27,896, on the ground that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 36,06,319/-, without considering the submissions of the appellant. The levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 9,27,896/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), Nation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the assessee during the year in share trading transactions. Thus, the net income of the assessee, as per the order of the Ld. CIT(A), had resulted into loss of Rs. 2,57,393/-. Considering this fact, the Assessing Officer was not correct in imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the profit amount of Rs. 36,06,319/- without considering the loss of Rs. 38,63,192/- as allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer had not mentioned, while initiating the penalty proceeding, as to whether the penalty was leviable for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, either in the assessment order or in the penalty notice. 10. Per contra, Shri B.P. Srivastava....