9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer had levied penalty at the rate of 20% which was set aside by the Tribunal. Since the assessee had filed revised return after books of account were returned and as on appreciation of facts the Tribunal found that there was no material on record to show the original return was not bonafide or there was no fraud or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee while filing the original returns and the Tribunal in appeal found that admission cannot give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to levy penalty, in our view, no substantial question of law arises from the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA 545 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 11-8-2015 - Hon'ble SOUMITRA PAL AND Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led on 30th November, 1962. On 18th January, 1965 the return for the assessment year 1964-65 was filed. All the assessments were either set aside or reopened at the instance of the assessee under section 146 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the books of accounts seized by the CBI were returned to the assessee. After receiving the books of accounts, on 30th July, 1974 revised returns for the all the assessment years were filed. On 4th October, 1974, revised returns were assessed and orders were passed. As there was difference between the original returned income of the assessee and the income assessed by the Assessing Officer, for all the assessment years penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion) for levy of minimum penalty and as concealment is patent, the levy of penalty is just and proper. Mr. Abhrotosh Majumder, learned advocate for the respondent, assisted by Mrs.Nilanjana Banerjee (Pal), referring to the order of the Tribunal submits that since the books of accounts were seized by the CBI, the assessee had no other option but to file return on estimate basis. Thereafter, for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66, at the instance of the assessee, the assessments were reopened. After the books of accounts seized by the CBI were returned, revised returns were filed for all the assessment years. Evidently the only ground for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was the difference between the returne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
