9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the same directions as have been given by the Tribunal in the case of assessee for AY 1999-2000 – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No.2236/MUM/2007, ITA No. 1400/MUM/2007 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2014 - Shri I. P. Bansal And Shri Sanjay Arora,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Neeraj Seth For the Respondent : Revenue by : Shri R. K. Sahu ORDER Per I. P. Bansal, J.M, These are cross appeals and are directed against order passed by Ld. CIT(A)XXXII, Mumbai dated 11/12/2006 for assessment year 2000-01. Grounds of appeal in both the appeals read as under: Revenue s Grounds of Appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in reducing the penalty levied by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) on the alleged ground that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income by making a wrong claim in respect of lease rent. 2. The Appellant prays that the JCIT be directed to delete the aforesaid penalty passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. GROUND II: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) also erred in upholding the action of the JCIT in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the alleged ground that the Appellant has not furnished any evidence to discharge its onus in proving that it has not filed inaccurate particulars of its income by substantiating with evidence that borrowed moneys on which it has claimed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no concealment penalty is leviable 4. So far as it relates to other component, addition on which impugned penalty has been levied i.e. a sum of ₹ 1,52,61,839/-, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has held that since there was no taxable income or tax assessed for payment during a particular year, the question of evasion and subsequently penalty does not arise and provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act will be attracted in the case where assessee has positive income only and not loss. For holding so Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Prithipal Singh, 183 ITR 69 and also the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orient Syntex Limited , ITA No. 1069 of 2000 and the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issions. In the facts of the case, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) to his file with direction to pass a de novo appellate order in accordance with law after allowing the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and to decide the issues before him on merits thereof. We direct accordingly. 3. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 12.11.2008. 6. In this view of the situation, after hearing both the parties, the question of levy or otherwise of the concealment penalty on the addition of ₹ 1,52,61,839/- is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the same directions as have been given by the Tribunal in the case of assessee for assessment year 1999-2000. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
