9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer cannot simultaneously levey penalty treating such income as concealed income. We therefore uphold the order of the Tribunal, appeal is dismissed - IT Appeal No. 2 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2011 - C.N. Ramachandran Nair, M.L. Joseph Francis, JJ. Jose Joseph for the Appellant T.M. Sreedharan, C.K. Sherin and V.P. Narayanan for the Respondent JUDGEMENT 1. The appeal is filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cancelling the suo motu revision order issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act against the order of the Assessing Officer dropping the proposal for penalty. 2. We have heard the standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Adv. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court in C.A. Abraham v. ITO [1961] (41 ITR 425) and Union of India v. Banwari Lal Agarwal [1999] (238 ITR 461) and also a decision of this court in CIT v. DKB and Co. [2000] 243 ITR 618 in support of his contention that penalty proceedings is maintainable against the assessee and dropping of the proceedings by the officer without assigning any reason is an order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue that could be revised in section 263 proceedings. However, learned counsel appearing for the assessee relied on the unreported decision of ours in ITR 24 of 2009 wherein we declined to interfere with and our two decisions, one in ITA 24 of 2009 and another in ITA 1515 of 2009 wherein this court held that no penalty could be initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the department is that the assessee is precluded from challenging the assessment and whatever is the additional income offered for assessment and accepted by the Assessing Officer, is the final amount assessed on which tax is payable and in fact the assessee paid the assessed tax. So much so we feel that the Assessing Officer was protecting the interest of the revenue by going for an agreed assessment based on the amount offered by the assessee without contest. We therefore feel that in such case, Assessing Officer cannot conclude that the income assessed based on offer made by the assessee could be treated as concealed income detected by him, no matter he would have made assessment of additional income based on evidence collected by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
