9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... othing but an additional tax and consequently, a person cannot be punished more than once in respect of the same offence – CIT(A) was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed upon the assessee, who was subjected to penalty in the status of an individual - the assessee has not concealed the income on FDRs - the amounts invested in the Fixed Deposit Receipts belongs to the firm and the income als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h seizure operation, the Assessing Officer made a best judgment assessment under Section 144/147 of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated both against the firm as well as against the partners. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee, contended that the partners were deriving income from the firm and there was no justification in imposing a penalty again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax, 1961 imposed by the Assessing Officer for the assessee's failure to disclose his true and correct income? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or concealment of income can not be levied once in the hands of the firm and again in the hands of its partners. In the light of the aforesaid decision, we are of view that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed upon the assessee, who was subjected to penalty in the status of an individual. We further, find that the assessee has not concealed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
