Case Law Details
Action Construction Equipment Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
The Assessing Officer has not given any reason as to why he dropped the penalty in Assessment Year 2010-11 and sustained the imposition of penalty for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 under the same set of facts. Moreover, in the impugned penalty order, the Assessing Officer has stated that non-filing of appeal goes to demonstrate the acceptance by the assessee of furnishing/concealing of income to the tune of Rs. 15,96,494/-. This observation goes to demonstrate that the Assessing Officer had not specified the charge, whether it was far furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Therefore, looking into the facts where the Assessing Officer under the same set of facts has dropped the penalty in Assessment Year 2010-11, therefore, the penalty in this year also cannot be sustained, hence, deleted. Grounds raised in the appeal are allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.11.2017 of the learned CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon, relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. That on facts and in law imposition of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) for Rs.5,42,648/- is without any basis, totally wrong, unjustified, illegal and unwarranted. The appellant is not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the following grounds:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
