GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

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

LinkedIn


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
on 29 May 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 45
downloaded 10 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags