9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma And Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,JJ. For the Appellant : D. D. Chopra For the Respondent : Aakarsh Garg, Amit Shukla ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the Department under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in ITA No.564/Luc/2008, for the assessment year mentioned above. On 27.07.2010, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that on the date of filing of the return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 09.04.2008 has cancelled the said penalty by observing that the concealment of the income was not established. Being aggrieved, the Department has filed second appeal bearing No. ITA 564/Luc/2008, before the Tribunal, who vide its impugned order dated 12.09.2008, uphold the cancellation of the penalty by the first appellate authority. Still not being satisfied, the Department has filed an appeal bearing No. 14/2009under Section 260A of the Act before this Hon'ble High Court. This Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 10.11.2009 has restored the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the issue afresh in accordance with the law. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, again, the Tribunal has passed a fresh order dated 18.03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attracting the civil liability. It is a fit case of the prosecution under Section 276(c) of the Act. So, he made a request to restore the order of the AO. On the other hand, Sri S.K. Garg, learned counsel for the assessee had justified the impugned order. He submits that the details for the amount received back in India, was filed on 29.03.2004, though the limitation period was upto 31.03.2004. he submits that the claim was made as per the account submitted by the assessee. He also relied on the case laws, which has already been discussed in the impugned order. After hearing both the parties at length and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accounts were duly audited and the exemption under Section 10B was claimed by furnishi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
