9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis that it was necessary to prove that there was a mala fide intention on the part of the assessee for imposing penalty. The said reasoning cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008 -TMI - 31520 - SUPREME COURT] -substantial question of law passed in favour of the Revenue - 1000 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2009 - V. C. SABHAHIT and S. N. SATYANARAYANA JJ. M.V. Seshachala for the appellant. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. V. G. Sabhahit J.-This appeal by the Revenue is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji in I. T. A. No. 34/PANJ/2006 wherein th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the said appeal by order dated February 13, 2006. Being aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred by the Revenue and the appeal was admitted on July 2, 2007, for the consideration of the following substantial question of law : "Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) by holding that rectification entries were passed subsequently and the goods were taxed during the assessment year 1997-98 in the hands of M/s. Rajesh Industries which is contrary to the facts of the case ; since the assessee and M/s. Rajesh Industries did not file revised returns subsequent to rectification of account entries and consequently recorded a perverse finding ?" 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also clear from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal being the final authority on the question of fact has not given any finding as to whether the explanation that is submitted by the assessee in response to the notice for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) falls within Explanations 1 to 7 contained in the said section and unless there is anything to that effect, the question of setting aside the imposition of penalty by the Assessing Officer which has been confirmed by the appellate authority would not arise and wherefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse and arbitrary and cannot be justified and the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue. Since this co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
