9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Levy of penalty @100% confirmed as against @150% as levied by the AO - Decided partly in favor of revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 146 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2016 - Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, JJ. For the Appellant : Standing Counsel, A. N. Mahajan For the Respondent : Shakeel Ahmad ORDER Heard Sri Praveen Kumar learned standing counsel for the department and Sri Shakeel Ahmad learned counsel for the assessee. This appeal has been filed by the department under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1985-86 against the order of tribunal dated 28.7.2006. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessment, in this case, was completed under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tribunal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) dated 4.12.2000. The tribunal vide their order dated 28.7.2006 deleted the penalty of ₹ 18,67,800/- which was sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepting the assessee's explanation that the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not leviable in its case as the assessed income was nil as per the order of the A.C.I.T.-V dated 6.9.2003 in view of the decision given by this Court in the case of M/s. Zam Zam Tanners Ltd. (2005) vol. 279 ITR 197. While allowing assessee's appeal, the tribunal has relied on the decision of this court in the case of M/s. Zam Zam Tanners Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that no penalty u/s.271( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act? The question no.(1) is answered in favour of the department and against the assessee in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax versus Gold Coin Health Food P.Ltd. reported in (2008)304 ITR 308 (SC) wherein the Apex Court has come to the conclusion that Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act is clarificatory and not substantive and would apply even to assessment year prior to April 1, 2003, the date on which the amendment was brought into force. The question no.(2) with regard to the quantum of penalty which has been reduced to 100% by the C.I.T. (Appeals) from 150% levied by Assessing Officer, is sufficient. As such this question is answered a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
