Appeal against levy of penalty of Rs.1,44,200/- by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act


Last updated: 29 May 2021

Court :
ITAT Delhi

Brief :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28th January, 2019 of the CIT(A)-4, Kanpur, relating to the A.Y. 2014-15.

Citation :
ITA No.1949/Del/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DEHRADUN BENCH : DEHRADUN
(Through Virtual Hearing)

BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.1949/Del/2019
Assessment Year: 2014-15

Shri Deshpal Singh Kohli,
46, Saharanpur Road,
Dehradun.
PAN: ACGPK1599Q
(Appellant) 

Vs 

DCIT,
Dehradun.
(Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Kanwal Juneja, Advocate
Revenue by : Shri Vinay Singh Rawat, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 26.03.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2021

ORDER

PER R.K. PANDA, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28th January, 2019 of the CIT(A)-4, Kanpur, relating to the A.Y. 2014-15.

2. Levy of penalty of Rs.1,44,200/- by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) and confirmed by the CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from truck plying. He filed his return of income on 31st March, 2015 declaring the total income at Rs.38,08,660/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 11.11.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.42,75,320/- wherein he made an addition of Rs.4,66,660/- on account of additional income from short-term capital gain offered by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The AO, thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, he has rendered himself liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. He accordingly levied penalty of Rs.1,44,200/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.

4. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the AO.

5. The ld. counsel for the assessee made two-fold arguments. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, he submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee had sold one property bearing No.A129, Defence Colony, New Delhi and the amount received during the year was shown, but, the amount which was received much earlier amounting to Rs.4,66,666/- on 13th December, 2011 by cheque in A.Y. 2012-13 was left to be shown while computing the income.

To know more in details find the attachment file

 

Guest
Published in Income Tax
Views : 369
downloaded 185 times

Comments




CCI Pro

Follow us
add to google news


Company
19 June 2026
Accounts Executive

Getfive Advisors Pvt. Ltd.

Ahmedabad

CA Inter

View Details
Company
20 June 2026
Assistant Accounts Manager

Fintax Professionals

Gurgaon

CA Inter

View Details
Company
25 June 2026
AUDIT MANAGER

JDAS & ASSOCIATES

New Delhi

CA

View Details
Company
12 June 2026
Accounts & Taxation Executive

Winshine Financial Services

Mumbai

CA Inter

View Details
Company
09 June 2026
Accounts Associate

S Madan and CO

New Delhi

Graduate (Any)

View Details
Company
22 June 2026
Finance Manager- Chartered Accountant

Triveni Turbine Limited

Bengaluru

CA

View Details
Company
22 June 2026
Accountant

Global Image Technologies Private Limited

New Delhi

MBA

View Details
Company
24 June 2026
Senior Account (VA Client Operations)

Karbon Business

Bengaluru

CA Inter

View Details