9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en for filing revised return was that most of the business was looked after by his brother who was in a position to comply with the details and since he was no more in this world he opted to file revised return – tribunal is legally and factually correct in canceling the penalty and committed no error in deleting the penalty – appeal decided against revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 32 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2013 - Akil Kureshi And Sonia Gokani,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Pranav G. Desai ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated August 03, 2012. The following questions have been pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed penalty at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be avoided under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and quantified the same at Rs.12.61 lac. 4. Assessee carried the penalty order in appeal. CIT (Appeals) deleted the penalty making following observations :- 7. In the instant case, on perusal of facts, I find that the appellant had filed his original return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring total taxable income of Rs.5,96,580 and also filed revised return of income on 01.02.2007 declaring total taxable income of Rs.42,96,580/-. The revised return filed by the appellant was within the time limit prescribed u/s.139(5) of the Act. I am of the view that liability to penalty u/s.271(1)(c) and filing of revised return u/s.139(5) are mutuall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs.37,00,000/- over and above income offered in the original return of income. This covers loan taken by him from various persons of Rs.19,00,000/- as well as further amount to cover error of omission and commission and other discrepancy if any. The reason given for filing revised return was that most of the business was looked after by his brother who was in a position to comply with the details and since he was no more in this world, he opted to file revised return. Looking to these facts, we convinced that ld.CIT(A) is legally and factually correct in canceling the penalty of Rs.12,61,050/- levied by AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Consequently, we decline to interfere. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income which have been concealed by the assessee. The Tribunal has found, as a matter of fact, that till 31.3.1989 the process of detection was not complete, the date 31.3.1989 being the date of filing of revised returns. In face of these findings recorded on the basis of evidence appreciated by the Tribunal, the Court does not find it necessary to deal with any other issues considering the question referred for the opinion of this Court. In fact, there is no material on record to indicate that the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal is incorrect in any manner whatsoever. Furthermore, the Tribunal has also noted as a matter of fact that the very same amounts standing to the credit of the bank accounts of various family members had already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
