9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 199293. 3. The Revenue has raised the following question of law for consideration of this Court: Whether the ITAT is right in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and in canceling the penalty of Rs.53,05,857/u/ s. 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the assessee concealing particulars of income and despite the ITAT's order (against quantum assessment) deleting the addition made on account of capital gains u/s. 45 (4) of the Income Tax Act, being appealed before this Court being contrary to the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v/s. A. N. Naik Associates 265 ITR 346 (Bom), and with to ratio of the decision of Supreme Court in CGT v/s. Chhotelal Mohan Lal 166 ITR 124 (SC). 4. During the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer and held that no penalty is imposable upon the respondentassessee. This was on the ground that for the Assessment Year 199293, the Tribunal had by its order dated 26 October, 2006 allowed the claim of the respondentassessee on merits. Moreover, the CIT(A) held that the penalty has been imposed merely on account of a different interpretation being given to the provisions by the revenue from that given by the respondentassessee. In these circumstances also, the CIT(A) held that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the said Act was imposable upon the respondentassessee. 7. The Revenue carried the matter in the Appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 27 February 2008 upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of income on the part of the respondent assessee in filing its return of income. At the highest, the claim made by the respondent assessee that the amount attributable to the goodwill amount which was written off is not chargeable to tax was not accepted by the revenue. In such circumstances, merely making of a claim which is found to be not sustainable and would not warrant imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the said Act as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIV v/s. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 158. The sinequanon for imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the said Act is concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which is admittedly not so in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
