SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

carried out on 03.10.2013 in the case of the Bhanwarlal Jain Group, wherein it was found that the group was issuing accommodation entries relating to bogus purchases and sales through benami concerns. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, the AO observed that the assessee had allegedly received bogus purchase entries amounting

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

loss to the Revenue. I am of the view that main group has accepted the impugned transaction as their income, therefore, protective addition in the hands of the ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala assessee needs to be deleted. Based on this factual position, I delete the protective addition of Rs.38,12,933/-, in the hands of the assessee

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

loss to the Revenue. I am of the view that main group has accepted the impugned transaction as their income, therefore, protective addition in the hands of the ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala assessee needs to be deleted. Based on this factual position, I delete the protective addition of Rs.38,12,933/-, in the hands of the assessee

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

loss to the Revenue. I am of the view that main group has accepted the impugned transaction as their income, therefore, protective addition in the hands of the ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala assessee needs to be deleted. Based on this factual position, I delete the protective addition of Rs.38,12,933/-, in the hands of the assessee

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण . वष" /A Y: 1 1992/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs Imperial Developers, Of Income Tax, . ‘Blossom’ Near Vesu Canal A.Y. 2013-14 Central Opp.Dps School, Circle-3, Surat – 395 Vesu, Surat. 001. [Pan: Aadfi 5694 R] िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah - Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Srinivas T.Bidari – Sr.Dr

carry forward losses or any deduction under chapter VI-A and hence, treating the said income under any head would not alter the total tax liability. In the said scenario when there would even no change in the tax liability, there would even be no question of filing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income for initiating penalty

SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEWA MANDAL TRUST,UNA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.204/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Sewa Vs. The Ito, Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘Nfac), Delhi, In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036051308(1) Dated 30.09.2021, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

carried the mater in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the penalty imposed by the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. Shri Rasesh Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that on the part of the assessee there is an unintentional mistake

AKSHAR GEMS,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.3(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.24/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Virtual Court Hearing) Akshar Gems, Assistant Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Shreeji Diamond Apartment, Vs. Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Nandu Doshi Ni Wadi, Vastadevdi Road, Aaykar Bhavan Nr.Majura Katargam, Surat – 395004 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarfa3697A Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2023

loss to the Revenue. Since a default by not furnishing the requisite form 15CA/certificate in 9 remittance before the Assessing Officer in respect of foreign remittance was committed by the assessee, therefore, liable for levy of penalty. The assessee has failed to substantiate its bona fide and therefore penalty should be imposed. 9. We have heard both the parties

ALOK SHAILESHBHAI MEHTA (HUF),SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), SURATQ

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.32/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) – Huf, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(1), 5/914, Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat. Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaihm4575L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Revenue By : Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Surat-1/10085/2017-18 Dated 31.12.2019 Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

carried forward in the current year, therefore bonafide of the assessee’s claim cannot be disputed i.e. there was a bonafide claim by the assessee, as the transaction was getting reflected in the previous year’s books and opening balance of the said bank account is getting reflected in the current year`s books of accounts. Therefore

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

forward losses under sections 72 to 74A, the return of income should be filed within the time-limit provided under section 139(1), otherwise losses cannot be set-off. In absence of such a restriction, the limitation of time of "due date" cannot be strictly reckoned with section 139(1). Thus, the meaning of the words "due date", sans

SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

forward losses under sections 72 to 74A, the return of income should be filed within the time-limit provided under section 139(1), otherwise losses cannot be set-off. In absence of such a restriction, the limitation of time of "due date" cannot be strictly reckoned with section 139(1). Thus, the meaning of the words "due date", sans

N CORE CABLES,,DAMAN vs. THE ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.323 To 327/Srt/2018 Ays: (2005-06 To 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri A. Gopalkrishnan, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 10/10/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022

Loss Account, vide Page 79 of the Paper Book. We note that decision of the Honorable Bombay high Court in the case of Penwalt India Ltd reported in [1991] 58 TAXMAN 133 (BOM) wherein on a similar situation the Hon’ble High Court has held that assessee in that case qualify for the relief u/s

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs. THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.323 To 327/Srt/2018 Ays: (2005-06 To 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri A. Gopalkrishnan, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 10/10/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022

Loss Account, vide Page 79 of the Paper Book. We note that decision of the Honorable Bombay high Court in the case of Penwalt India Ltd reported in [1991] 58 TAXMAN 133 (BOM) wherein on a similar situation the Hon’ble High Court has held that assessee in that case qualify for the relief u/s

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs. THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.323 To 327/Srt/2018 Ays: (2005-06 To 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri A. Gopalkrishnan, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 10/10/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022

Loss Account, vide Page 79 of the Paper Book. We note that decision of the Honorable Bombay high Court in the case of Penwalt India Ltd reported in [1991] 58 TAXMAN 133 (BOM) wherein on a similar situation the Hon’ble High Court has held that assessee in that case qualify for the relief u/s

N CORE CABLES,DAMAN vs. THE ACIT,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.323 To 327/Srt/2018 Ays: (2005-06 To 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.689/Srt/2018 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) N. Core Cables, Vs. The Acit, Vapi Circle, Gala No.7, Plot No.10, Primier Vapi. Industrial Area, Kachigam, Daman-396210, U.T Of Daman & Diu. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefn7954N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri A. Gopalkrishnan, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 10/10/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2022

Loss Account, vide Page 79 of the Paper Book. We note that decision of the Honorable Bombay high Court in the case of Penwalt India Ltd reported in [1991] 58 TAXMAN 133 (BOM) wherein on a similar situation the Hon’ble High Court has held that assessee in that case qualify for the relief u/s

THE DY,CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, SURAT vs. M/S. NAKODA LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed

271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act levied by the AO, while the assessee had committed a default by claiming wrong deduction of unabsorbed loss and unabsorbed depreciation from the profit calculated u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing

M/S. BASE INDUSTRIES LTD.,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD -1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

U/s 271(1)(c) to the tune of Rs.2,62,93,833/-.” Vide application dated 27.08.2021 field on 08.09.2021 the assessee has raised following additional grounds: “Ground 5: “That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued under section 271(1)(c)/274 of the Act, and the order passed under section 271

FORTUNE DREAM CON PVT. LTD,VAPI vs. ITO, WARD-2, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.321/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Vs. The Ito, Ward-2, 3Rd Floor, Fortune Dream Con Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 165/C/3, Opp. Fortune Pakak Arcade, Aayakar Bhavan, Mall, Gidc, Vapi. Shantinagar Tithal Road, Valsad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcf 4561 F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Vls/115/17-18 Dated 14.05.2019 Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 30.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Ld Cit(A) Had Erred On The Facts Of The Case In Upholding The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.”

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer gave two opportunities vide letter dated 07.04.2017 & 09.06.2017, but assessee did not comply notice of Assessing Officer. Therefore, Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, to the tune of Rs.4,76,205/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried

KANERIYA SAND AND AGGREGATES PVT.LTD,SURAT vs. DY.CIT, VALSAD

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Kaneriya Sand & The Dy. Commissioner Of Aggregates Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Vs U-6, Jk Towers, Ring Road, Valsad Circle, Valsad. Surat. Pan : Aadck8622N Applicant Respondent

u/s 41(1) which cannot be levied where the difference was due to genuine reason and there was no evidence to suggest that it was done with the consent or knowledge of the assessee. 5.The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts to confirm the penalty without considering that even if considered it as income

GTPL RAJWADI NETWORK PVT. LTD.,BAMROLI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has restricted the penalty being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. That is, the penalty amount was restricted by ld CIT(A) to Rs.1,56,587/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of ld CIT(A), the assessee