9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities went into the merits of the explanation offered by the assessee on penalty and not on the issue whether the original authority had reserved his right to proceed u/s 271(1)(c) relating to the deemed dividend - since there is no consideration by the Tribunal on the ground raised by the assessee, the matter is to be remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the scope of the second penalty order – Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Case (Appeal) No.614 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 12-11-2014 - MR. R.SUDHAKAR AND MR. R.KARUPPIAH, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.S.Sridhar For the Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar JUDGEMENT Per: R Sudhakar: This is an appeal at the instance of the assessee against the order of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income are concerned, penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance in view of the pendency of an appeal. However, as the appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed subsequently, penalty proceedings were pursued by the Assistant Commissioner and an order came to be passed on 30.3.2010 holding as follows:- Tax sought to be evaded is calculated as hereunder: Assessed income including concealed income Rs.1,65,91,759/- Tax thereon Rs.56,02,830/- Income excluding income particulars of which is concealed (1,65,91,759-6,48,950-1,50,000/-) Rs.1,57,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above order, the ground is allowed. 7. As regards levy of penalty on the addition of deemed dividend of ₹ 1,50,000/- it may be stated that the appellant has not been able to offer any explanation. Therefore, the AO has rightly levied the penalty because the conditions of section 271(1)(c) and the Explanation of that section are clearly satisfied in the instant case....... Hence, I am of the considered view that it was an deliberate act on the part of the appellant to conceal its income and deprive the department of its legitimate due....In view of the above factual and legal positions, I am of the considered opinion that the AO has rightly levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of the additions of ₹ 1,50,000/- towards d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned, when a specific plea was raised both before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be pursued when the said plea was specifically abandoned at the first instance without reserving any right pending appeal, the impugned orders of both the first and second appellate authorities cannot be sustained, as the said point had not been considered at all. 5. We also heard the learned counsel for the Revenue on this issue. 6. We find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, as the proceedings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal only state that the explanation offered by the assessee was not corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
