SHRI AJAYKUMAR BATRA,,BANDARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 7,, NAGPUR
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 19/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19/Nag/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Ajaykumar Batra, Prop. M/S. Saibaba Construction, Rajgopalchari Ward, Bandara-441904. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Abjpa9287H बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Kailash M. Jogani, Ca & Shri Mukesh R. Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri U. U. Kasar, Jt. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Ii, Nagpur Dated 22.09.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law. 2. The Act Of Learned A.O. Levying The Penalty Of Rs.16,97,544/- U/S 271(1)(C) Is Unjustified. 3. The Learned A.O. Erred In Charging Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) For Concealment Of Income. But There Is No Concealment At All. The Income Offered U/S. 133A Was Jut To Cover Up The Discrepancies, Avoid Further Litigation & To Buy A Peace. 4. Any Other Ground Shall Be Prayed At The Time Of Hearing.”
For Appellant: Shri Kailash M. Jogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri U. U. Kasar, Jt. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)
u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Thus, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer suffers from ambiguity in his mind.
12. Therefore, considering the above referred binding judgments, we are of the view that such penalty is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition that the Assessing Officer is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb
