9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t "the Tribunal"), dated January 30, 2003, dismissing its appeal, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short "the CIT(A)") cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts which are relevant for resolving the controversy and are not in dispute are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1988-89 on November 10, 1988, showing an income of Rs. 16,420. On the basis of that return, the assessment was completed under section 143(1) of the Act on January 18, 1989. Thereafter, on investigations conducted by the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Bathinda (for short "the ADIT"), it was found that the assessee had purchased the following drafts but t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e peak investment of Rs. 1,85,769 in the bank drafts to the originally returned income of Rs. 16,420. Assessment on this return was also made under section 143(1) of the Act on March 11, 1991. Subsequently, the ADIT forwarded his report to the Assessing Officer, Muktsar, who on the basis of the said report, issued notice under section 148 of the Act on January 28,1992. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed another return on February 4, 1993, declaring an income of Rs. 2,02,190 which was the income declared by him in the earlier return filed on March 7, 1991. This return was filed under protest as the assessee claimed that no income had escaped assessment. The assessee's objection was overruled and assessment on the basis of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer had again framed the assessment at the same figure on March 7, 1994. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was of the view that since there was no variance of income in both the situations, i.e., vide assessment order dated March 11, 1991, and assessment order dated March 7, 1994, there was no scope for levy of penalty in pursuance of the assessment order dated March 7, 1994. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), accordingly, cancelled the penalty. The Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed vide the impugned order in the following terms: "4. We have heard both the parties at length and have also gone through the orders of the authorities below. At the very outset, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y filing a voluntary return. In fact the Assessing Officer detected nothing before filing of the return in response to notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The net result of the above discussion is that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) requires no interference at our level and accordingly we uphold the same." A bare perusal of the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal shows that the entire undisclosed income in respect of which penalty has been imposed had been disclosed in the return filed by the assessee voluntarily on March 7,1991. Assessment on the basis of this return was framed under section 143(1) of the Act on March 11, 1991. No penalty proceedings ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
