M/S B M STAR ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2008-09, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective ground:- 1. “The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of Rs. 1,66,637/-. The CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in not providing proper and reasonable opportunity to the appellant before passing the appellate order. 2. the learned CIT (A) erred in not considering the facts that, the assessing officer has not specified the specific charge/limb in Assessment Year: 2008-09 show cause notice for which he intends to impose penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 3. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in not appreciating facts of the case properly while confirming penalty. 4. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty on estimated addition. 5. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in not accepting/considering submission of appellant while passing an order. 6. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law in not following decision of jurisdictional Tribunal and High Court on similar issue. 7. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law in not considering judgments of various courts wherein it was held that, “the Assessing Officer while initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act has not recorded any satisfaction whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence, entire penalty proceedings required to be quashed…