9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 271 (1) (c) – Decided in favour of Assessee. - CM APPL. 4649 & 4650/2014 IN ITA 36/2002 - - - Dated:- 8-5-2014 - S. Ravindra Bhat And Vibhu Bakhru,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Anoop Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Jr. Standing Counsel. ORDER Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court) CM APPL.4650/2014 (for condonation of delay) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL.4649/2014 (for restoration) For the reasons mentioned in the applications, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice requires that appeal should be restored on the file of this Court. Ordered accordingly. CM APPL.4649/2014 is allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant reiterated the claim made. Subsequently, reassessment notice was issued on 6.3.1987 and the amount was disallowed; penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271 (1) (C) as well as under Section 273 (2). The matter went up to the Tribunal. In its earlier order of 1.6.2001 in respect of the same years, i.e., 1983-84, the Tribunal directed deletion of the penalty under Section 273 (2) observing as follows: - 8. After hearing both the sides and going through the record as well as circular of the Board, I find that benefit of amnesty cannot be denied to the assessee, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, as assessee has opted under the said scheme and it has not been stated by either of the authorities below that ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the action of the learned CIT (Appeals) in this regard is justified............ The assessee urges that the surrender was made voluntarily and relied upon the answers to questions-1, 19 26 in terms of Circular No.451 dated 17.2.1986, comprising clarifications on the amnesty scheme. It was submitted that in terms of these answers given by the Department to these questions, the surrender of amounts was voluntary and was not made after detection of the wrongful claim. It was lastly urged that, given the view of the Tribunal in respect of the penalty under Section 273 (2) of the Income Tax Act, the finding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is warranted is in clear error of law inasmuch as it has resulted in inconsistent views in regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
