9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity dated 16.03.2012. That order was a common order for three assessment years, and therefore, three Income Tax Appeals before the Tribunal were preferred. 4. Ground No.1 for all the years was the same. The grounds of Appeal for the assessment year 2001-2002 are reproduced by the Tribunal in the internal page no. 2 of the order impugned in the present Appeals (running page no. 48). There, ground no.2 dealt with the imposition of penalty. 5. The precise argument is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to take into consideration the specific ground raised before him. That ground raised by the assessee pertains to levying of penalty. The argument was that the Assessing Officer should not have levied penalty on the basis of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter. Hence, the Revenue argued that it would be appropriate if the matter is sent back to the Assessing Officer with directions to levy penalty on the quantum, if any, surviving after giving effect to the Tribunal's aforementioned directions. 6. It is this argument which has been dealt with. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order, the Tribunal held thus: "5. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. From the aforementioned order of the Tribunal it is almost clear that the share transactions entered into by the assessee are treated as genuine. The outcome of which will be the deletion of these additions. However, keeping in mind the apprehension of the revenue, we consider it just and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals). The error in that confirmation was highlighted by the assessee's representative and during the course of his arguments, the assessee's representative referred to the Tribunals views on the merits and in quantum proceedings. That is how he would support the contention that there was no case made out for imposition of penalty. 10. Once such was the lis before the Tribunal, then the above quoted findings, which are derived from the Tribunal's order, do not raise any substantial questions of law, particularly, in the light of the argument of the Revenue's counsel as noted in paragraph 4 of the impugned order. Thus, whether the facts and circumstances justify deletion of penalty as prayed, or that the ingredients ena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
