2005 (3) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... event, no penalty could be imposed in the absence of the unit on the basis of which the penalty can be imposed in terms of section 271(1)(c)(iii) - No substantial question of law is involved. The appeal by revenue is, therefore, dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 7-3-2005 - Judge(s) : D. K. SETH., SOUMITRA PAL. JUDGMENT The application for condonation of delay was vehemently opposed by the lear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion of admission though formally he is not entitled to any hearing at this stage. After having heard the learned advocate for the appellant, it appears that the only question that emerges is as to whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) can be cancelled by the learned Tribunal or the appellate authority. The question seems to be covered by the decision in the case of CIT v. Prithip .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... if by reason of inaccurate account furnished by the assessee tax was evaded. Inasmuch as section 271 prescribes, in such a case, that the penalty should be not less than but not exceeding three times the amount of tax evaded, in case no tax is found to have been evaded, there is no scope for imposing penalty equal to the tax payable. Sub-clause (iii) makes it clear that the penalty contemplated un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X