PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,
In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed
ITA 738/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2018AY 2008-09
Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik
For Appellant: Shri Kishore Phadke
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)
68,65,088/- by way of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.
Act, 1961, which is equal to sum of tax sought to be evaded, . . . . . . .”
From the above, it is clear that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings for the offence of „concealing the particulars of income‟ and levied the same for “furnishing inaccurate particulars”. Therefore
