The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 0742 (Jp-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH

SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. & VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.

Anil Ghatiwala v. Dy. CIT

ITA No. 845/JP/2018

11 January, 2021

Assessee Partly Allowed.

Assessee by: S.R. Sharma (CA) & Rajnikant Bhatra (CA)

Revenue by: Runi Pal (Addl. Commissioner)

ORDER

Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-04, Jaipur, dated 2-4-2018 pertaining to assessment year 2015-16 wherein the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee reads as under :--

'1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming penalty of Rs. 4,95,189 imposed by the assessing officer under section 271AAB of the Act.

2. That the Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong and has erred in law in confirming the said penalty of Rs. 4,95,189 under section 271AAB of the Act, holding that it is mandatory in nature and not discretionary and so assessing officer is correct in law while imposing penalty on appellant.

3. That the Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong and has erred in law in confirming the said penalty of Rs. 4,95,189 under section 271AAB imposed by assessing officer although the notice issued by assessing officer for initiating the penalty under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not in accordance with law not being specifically pointing out the default for which the learned assessing officer sought to impose penalty under section 271AAB.

4. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong in confirming penalty of Rs. 4,95,189 under section 271AAB of the Act in as much the penalty was levied by assessing officer simply on the basis that the assessee admitted the income of Rs. 49,51,885 and disclosed in the return without proving that the said income was 'undisclosed income' of assessee within the meaning of section 271AAB of Income Tax Act, 1961.'

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT