9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from firm M/s Jagan Nath and Co. no legal error in the order under appeal and hold that the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT (A) setting aside penalty order - no substantial question of law is involved. - Income Tax Appeal No. 150, 156, 159, 160, 163, 181 and 187 of 2001 and 172, 173, 347, 352, 358, 359, 361, 362, 367 and 373 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 22-12-2010 - Yatindra Singh, Prakash Krishna, JJ. These are twenty appeals. These appeals arise out of penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appeals relate to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89. Shri Anoop Seth, Shri Rajeev Seth, Shri Chhotey Lal Seth and Shri Jagan Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw: "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee and cancelling the penalty u/s271(1)(a) of I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.75974/- imposed by the Assessing Officer, without appreciating the fact that despite number of opportunities given to the assessee including notice issued u/s 148 and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 neither the assessee made any compliance to the notices issued nor filed his return of income. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in cancelling the penalty without appreciating the facts fo the case as detailed in penalty u/s 271(1)(a) of the Act." Heard Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned senior standing counsel for the department. A bare perusal of the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was not found satisfactory and levy of penalty was held valid. In our considered view, both the decisions relied by the learned senior standing counsel for the department are distinguishable on facts and have no application to the cases on hand. We find that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow vs. Smt. Triveni Devi, has been followed by the other High Courts as well. Reference can be made to Madan Lamba vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi (1983) 139 ITR 849. In this case, the delay in filing the partners return on the ground that there was delay in finalization of firm's account, was held sufficient. The judgment of this Court in the case of Additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
