DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR vs. SMT. SHEHLA AHMED , KANPUR
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed
ITA 181/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2019AY 2013-14
Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-1 V. Smt. Shehla Ahmad Kanpur 376-C, Allied Street Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.09/Lkw/2018 [In Ita No.181/Lkw/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Shehla Ahmad V. Dy. Cit-1 376-C, Allied Street Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R. Assessee By: Shri Swarn Singh, Fca Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross Objection Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur, Dated 1/12/2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.22,00,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Undisclosed
For Appellant: Shri Swarn Singh, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40a
u/s 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable in law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai Vs Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore [2007J
161 TAXMAN 340 (SC). It was held that:
"................. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus, burden
