2010 (7) TMI 849

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... being the position, the assessee could not have any intention to suppress the taxable income as held by the CIT(A) as well as ITAT. No substantial questions of law arises.Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
Adarsh Kumar Goel And Ajay Kumar Mittal,JJ. For the Petitioner : Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Avinash Jhingan, Advocate ORDER Adarsh Kumar Goel (J):- 1. This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 16, 17, 42 & 43 of 2010, filed by the appellants, as learned counsel for the parties state that common question of law is involved in all these appeals. The facts are being taken from ITA No.16 of 2010. 2. ITA No.16 of 2010 has been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) ? (iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned ITAt was right in law in confirming the order of the learned CIT (A) in deleting the penalty of Rs.11,41,889 levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of addition made under Section 45 (5) in assessee's income which had already been confirmed by the learned ITAt ? (iv)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned IT?AT was right in law in confirming the order of the learned CIT(A) in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m the assessment proceedings, even though the additions have been made in the assessment proceedings, even though the additions have been made in the assessment order, the penal inferences cannot be necessarily drawn from them unless the deliberate act of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or their concealment is proven on the part of the AO in the fact of facts as well as the explanations tendered by the assessee. As the situation stands in this case, again the matter even though decided by the Special Bench of the learned Tribunal, Delhi, it is still under dispute and therefore, the disputed matters or additions as such do not attract the provisions of Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, I am of the confirmed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X