9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the order dated December 28, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "H", New Delhi in I. T. A. No.1165/DEL/2007 for the assessment year 2000-01, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had recorded initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order? 3. Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in deciding that proving contumacious intent is an essential ingredient in levy of penalty in contravention of the provisions of a civil statute like Income-tax Act in spite of there being so many judgments that breach of a civil obligation attracts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for raising a debatable issue, penalty could not be imposed, in the absence of any concealment or misrepresentation by the assessee. The said finding has been affirmed by the Tribunal in the following terms: " . . . The assessee during penalty proceedings claimed that there is no concealment and the addition/disallowances has been made on account of difference of opinion. This factual matrix was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the assessee. It was also pleaded that in the own case of the assessee for the assessment year 1998-99, the impugned addition was deleted by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide order dated September 12, 2006. In the present appeal also the claim of the assessee was duly supported by certificate of chartered accountant. It is pertinent to mention here that the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
