9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (7) of Section 94 of the Act were not disclosed by the assessee in the return filed, and even if some explanation was offered by the assessee, the same was not bona fide because no reason had been given by the assessee for not making disallowance under Section 94(7) of the Act. No perversity or illegality could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee in the findings recorded by the Tribunal that may persuade this Court to interfere therewith - 860 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2011 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate for appellant-assessee. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) has been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/-. According to the assessee, it suffered a loss of Rs. 8,59,817/- on the sale of shares. In assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer made disallowance of the aforesaid amount under the provisions of Section 94(7) of the Act and accordingly, assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 76,87,110/-. Proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act for imposing penalty were also initiated and the reply submitted on behalf of the assessee to the notice issued in that behalf having been found not satisfactory, the assessing officer observed that it was a case of concealment. The assessing officer, thus, imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,14,478/- by order dated 30.5.2008, which, was however, deleted by the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) but this deletion was not accepted by the Tribunal and accordingly, while accepting the appeal of the Revenue, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. It would in the first instance be advantageous to notice as to how the Tribunal upset the order of the CIT(A) and sustained the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. The Tribunal on analysis of the matter observed that it could not be said that the assessee was not aware of the provisions of Section 94(7) of the Act. It was noticed that the assessee-company had been availing the services of a Chartered Accountant and in spite of that no reply was filed by the assessee on the issue why th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for this reason as well, the assessee has to be blamed for nondisclosure of the facts relating to the same and the material to the computation of total income. The Tribunal, thus, after elaborately discussing the issue observed that the Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was directly applicable and the penalty was rightly imposed by the Assessing Officer. While holding so, the other reason for disagreeing by the Tribunal with the observations of the CIT(A) on the basis of which the penalty was deleted, mentioned in its order was that no material had been brought on record in its order by the learned CIT(A) or by the assessee during the course of hearing before them to show that there was any difference of opinion in that behalf. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
