2015 (8) TMI 663

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... shi ORDER P. C. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the Applicant for condoning the delay of 1178 days in filing the appeal. 2. The Notice of Motion indicate that the delay is of 740 days. Assessing Officer has filed an affidavit dated 3.8.2015 wherein he has indicated that the delay is 1178 days in filing the appeal. The reason for the delay was that the appellant has filed an appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Rs. 4,42,000/- even after the establishment of the fact that assessee has violated provisions of section 269SS? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271D of Rs. 4,42,000/- even when it was established that this amount was credited to the books of accounts of assessee in violation of section 269SS? (c) Wheth .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e with its earlier Instruction No.3 of 2011 directing the Revenue not to file appeals to the High Court from the order of the Tribunal when the tax effect is less than Rs. 10 lakhs. This Court in CIT vs. Vijaya V. Kavekar 350 ITR 237, dismissed the appeal having tax effect of less than Rs. 10 lakhs in terms of Instruction No.3 of 2011. This on the ground that the instructions of CBDT in terms of S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X