9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Bench. 3. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue in assessment year 2008-09 are as under:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in reducing the penalty from 50% to 10% of the outstanding demand on account of self assessment tax; levied by the AO u/s 221(1) read with Section 140A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that quantum of penalty levied by the JCIT, Bhiwani Range, Bhiwani is reasonable, fair and appropriately levied @ 50% of the total demand outstanding on account payment of self assessment tax. The maximum penalty leviable u/s 221(1) of the IT Act is equal to the amount of tax in arrears. 3. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e grounds of appeal of the Revenue in assessment year 2009- 10 are as under:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in reducing the penalty from 50% to 10% of the outstanding demand on account of self assessment tax; levied by the AO u/s 221(1) read with Section 140A(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that quantum of penalty levied by the JCIT, Bhiwani Range, Bhiwani is reasonable, fair and appropriately levied @ 50% of the total demand outstanding on account payment of self assessment tax. The maximum penalty leviable u/s 221(1) of the IT Act is equal to the amount of tax in arrears. 3. On the facts and in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in reducing the penalty from 50% to 10% of the outstanding demand on account of self assessment tax levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 221(1) read with Section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He submitted that the maximum penalty leviable u/s 221(1) of the Act was equal to the amount of tax in arrears, whereas the Assessing Officer was reasonable and appropriately levied the penalty on 50% of the total demand and no reason has been given by the CIT(A) for reducing the penalty to 10% of the outstanding demand. He relied on the decision of Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in Hope Micro Credit Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT - [2014] 47 taxmann.com 422 (Cochin-Trib.) , of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Diam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 1,21,64,826/- before the date of passing of penalty order u/s 221(1) on 17.11.2011. The CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee has paid the entire demand for both the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 along with the amount due u/s 220(2) by 29.03.2012. The provision of Section 221(1) does not specify any minimum penalty but specifies that total amount of penalty shall not exceed the amount of tax in arrears. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) was of the view that penalty at 50% of the outstanding demand was very harsh and unjustified. He has cited the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Global Infosystems Ltd. - [2007] 165 Taxman 486 (Del) and has held that it would be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
