TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pur. Another addition of Rs. 18,500 was also made by the AO on account of loan raised from Shri Harinder Singh. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of the AO, who deleted the amount of Rs. 18,500 and sustained the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 1,35,000 on which AO has imposed penalty of Rs. 61,470 which is equivalent to 100 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. The assessee took up the matter in appeal and it was contended before the first appellate authority that the AO has not allowed any opportunity to the assessee to prove that she had not concealed any particulars of income while filing the return. It was pointed out that the reply filed by the assessee was also not considered by the AO be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....991, and which is available on the assessment records. Thereafter, another notice was issued by the AO on 12th Aug., 1991, which was also an opportunity under s. 129 as the AO has changed and Shri P.L. Malhotra had taken over the charge of ITO, Ward 2(3). The assessee again filed reply dt. 20th April, 1991, which was received in the office of the AO on 22nd Aug., 1991, and which is available on record. Thereafter, no further proceedings were carried out by the AO till the penalty order dt. 31st Jan., 1995, was issued by Shri R.S. Chauhan, ITO, Ward. 2(3), Jalandhar. There is nothing on record that Shri R.S. Chauhan has issued any fresh notice to the assessee before levy of penalty. There is no mention of any such notice in the penalty order....