2014 (6) TMI 808

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Revenue for the assessment year 1999-2000 is directed against the order of the CIT(A). 2. At the time of hearing, none appearing on behalf of the assesee. However, the assessee has filed written submission before the Tribunal with a request to consider the same while deciding the appeal of the Revenue. 3. The grounds of the appeal of the Revenue are as under: "1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e find that in the first round of litigation in the assessment case of the assessee, the CIT(A) vide order dated 15.1.2003 deleted the addition of Rs.9,96,455/- on account of current liabilities. The department preferred an appeal to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of the AO to reprocess the assessment on the issue of an amount of current liabilities of Rs.9,96,4 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reas in the second round of litigation the same has been confirmed. The CIT(A) has observed that it is settled that when there were two divergent opinions are possible on an issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied. The CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has offered an explanation regarding sundry creditors which was not found acceptable by the AO, and that the AO has accepted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X