9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J.- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), against the order dated July 27, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench "B", Jaipur, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and affirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Jaipur, dated March 22, 2006, deleting the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,89,217, by the Assessing Officer under section 158BFA(2) of the Act. The facts of the appeal, in brief, are that a notice was issued to the asses- see-respondent by the Assessing Officer on September 12, 2005, to show cause as to why penalty under section 158BFA(2) of the Act may not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is income to the extent of Rs. 4,82,028 and is liable to penalty under section 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act. I have respectfully perused the order in ITSSA No. 7/JP/2003, dated July 23, 2004, of the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tri- bunal in paragraph 6 of the above order with regard to income from IUI test has held as under : 'We have heard the rival submissions. We have also perused the record. We find that 70 slips of tests had been found and the amount was written only on four slips. The contention of the learned authorised representative that these tests had been carried on experimental basis cannot be accepted as a whole truth. Therefore, having regard to the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also not the case of the Department that the assessee had furnished any false explanation or explanation furnished by the asses- see could be found false but the explanation or claim of the assessee was not acceptable to the Assessing Officer and, accordingly, additions were made and reduced by the appellate authorities on estimate basis. These circumstances give a scope of debate and argument that the assessee may be at fault or may not be at fault. Under these circumstances, we do not find reason to interfere with the first appellate order, as the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on the basis of the ratio laid down in different decisions on the issue of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act that the penal pro- v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it is sufficient to mention that the hon'ble apex court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) ; [2008] 231 ELT 3 (SC), was dealing with the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out that the provisions of section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and section 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act are in parimateria. That apart, it is also relevant to mention that imposition of penalty depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty on so-called three items of so-called concealed income. Each item was examined, thorough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
