RAJENDRA KUMAR AND COMPANY,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2, KANPUR
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 584/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2014-15 Rajendra Kumar & Company V. The Dy. Cit-2 74/276, Halsy Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aacfr6463Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 09 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur, Dated 13/6/2018, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. That The Impugned Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Illegal & Unsustainable In Law As The Ld. A.O. Has Not Mentioned Specific Charge In The Statutory Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Even When The Ld. A.O Has Not Mentioned The Specific Charge In The Statutory Notice Issued U/S 274 R/W Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That The Impugned Penalty Order Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Illegal & Ita No.584/Lkw/2018 Page 2 Of 7
For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274
u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, the penalty levied deserves to be deleted.
8. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-I Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty levied by the A.O. amounting to Rs.4,15,000/- on account of disallowance of expenses of Rs.13,37,539/- debited by the appellant
