9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) is satisfied that in respect of such assessment year such person has taxable income then such person shall for the purpose of clause (c) of sub-section (1) be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income notwithstanding that such person furnishes a return at any time after the expiry of the aforesaid period, in pursuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act. Also with effect from 01.04.2003 said explanation omitted the group of words “who has not previously been assessed under this Act”. Assessee opens up his arguments in assessment year 2002-03 and his case is that he had not previously been assessed to tax since he had only agricultural income not taxable under the provisions of the Act. In absence of an explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons: Learned counsel representing assessee opens up his arguments in assessment year 2002-03 first involving section 147/148 proceedings. His case is that this assessee had not previously been assessed to tax since he had only agricultural income not taxable under the provisions of the Act. The same is stated to be sufficient cause for the purpose of reversing both the lower authorities action in imposing the impugned penalty. Shri Yogesh Pandey, learned C.I.T (D.R.) at this stage vehemently argues that section 271 explanation 3 of the Act to this effect stands amended vide Finance Act 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003. We notice at this stage that the first year for the purpose of impugned explanation 3 application is assessment year 2003-04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 01.04.2003 said explanation omitted the group of words who has not previously been assessed under this Act . Since this change widened the scope of Explanation 3 only within which the assessee would be covered but since the amended explanation did not apply in case of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration, the Tribunal deleted the penalty. 4. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Desai for the Revenue and find that in absence of an explanation providing for a deeming fiction of concealment of income the case of the assessee would not be covered under the laid provision and since as held by the Tribunal, unamended Explanation 3 also did not cover the case of the assessee, the penalty was rightly deleted. Tax Appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
