SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAAR
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed
ITA 211/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2005-06
Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144
u/s. 271(l)(c) was sustained by the Hon'ble Mumbai IT AT on the ground that the AO therein had levied penalty after due application of mind, in as much as in the assessment order, it was mentioned that penalty proceedings were being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty was finally levied
