9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the department, Sri R.K. Agrawal , learned counsel for the assessee. This income tax appeal has been filed under section 260 A of the Income Tax Act against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2000 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 6327 //Del / 94. The appeal has already been admitted on 20.4.2007 and has been heard finally. The assessee preferred an appeal against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal against the said order. Therefore, learned counsel for the department submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal that in case of return of loss, penalty cannot be imposed, is erroneous. He submits that the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prithipal Singh and Co. is no longer a good law in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2008 (304) ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ratio of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Priti Pal Singh and Co. (Supra) as laid down by Hon'ble Punjab and & Haryana High Court and affirmed by the Apex Court, as referred to above, goes in favour of assessee and penalty U/s 271 (1) (c) is not leviable. So far as other points are concerned, these are of academic nature only because we are of the considered view that penalty U/s 271 (1) (c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) is clarificatory and not substantive. The view expressed to the contrary in Virtuals's case (2007) 9 SCC 665 was held to be not correct. in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gold Coin Health Food P. Ltd. the penalty is levialbe even in case of return of loss. In view of the above, the view of the Tribunal as quoted above that no penalty was leviable in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
