SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
ITA 968/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10
Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)
For Appellant: Shri Mahenda Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274
244
4. CIT vs Vidyagauri Natwar Lal, 238 ITR 91 (Guj)
Taking all these facts into consideration, the AO was satisfied that the assessee had
concealed income of Rs.23,33,440/- and the assessee is liable for penalty u/s
271(1)© of the Act. Thus the AO computed the penalty amount of Rs.7,93,130/-
and levied the same upon