2025 (4) TMI 2048

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. The solitary issue raised in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,34,500. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual running a bar attached hotel and restaurant. For the assessment year 2014-2015, the return of income was filed on 29.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 3,94,950. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2016 by determining total income at Rs. 55,96,850. The assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority and further appeal to the ITAT. Partial relief was granted to the assessee. Thereafter penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce contention of the appellant is not tenable. The appellant failed to explain the expenses claimed and failed to establish that those expenses which he claimed in the return of income are genuine. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the AO and hence these grounds of appeal are, accordingly, dismissed and the addition made by AO on this account is, hereby, confirmed." 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book enclosing therein copy of notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, copy of the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, copy of the CIT(A) order and the ITAT order in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the finding of the Appellate Tribunal in Annexure 'I' order that the notice proposing penalty, that was issued to the respondent/assessee, was inherently defective, in that, it had not specified the particular ground on which the Revenue was proceeding against the assessee for the imposition of the penalty. Thus, in any view of the matter, we find that the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on the respondent/assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 cannot be legally sustained." 8. In the instant case, on perusal of the assessment order (regular assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Act), we find it is mentioned that penalty proceedings have been initiated separately. In the notice issued u/s.274 of the....