9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan} This appeal, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for brevity), is preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal), in I.T.A.No.1717/Hyd/2014 dated 27.03.2015. The appellants herein filed the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT (Appeals), Hyderabad, dated 30.06.2014 for the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a penalty of Rs. 22,81,879/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by his order dated 26.03.2009. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred. The assessee contended before the CIT (Appeals) that the assessee had neither concealed any income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income for the year under consideration and that levy of penalty, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, was not justified. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e; this was evident from the Statement of Taxable income, a copy of which was submitted; from the statement, it was clear that the assessee had disclosed all the facts, relating to the earning of income from property, in the return of income filed by them; no particulars of income from house property were suppressed; the addition of Rs. 52,85,744/- had been made on recomputation of income under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antial question of law arises for consideration. It is only if the appellants are able to satisfy the Court that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is based on no evidence or the finding is perverse, can a substantial question of law be said to arise necessitating interference in appeal under Section 260A of the Act. In the present case, the Tribunal has held that the addition made by the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
