9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pinion, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for cancellation of the penalty are legally correct and the order passed by it does not give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law requiring determination by this court under section 260A of the Act. - - - - - Dated:- 22-4-2003 - Judge(s) : G. S. SINGHVI., S. S. GREWAL. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by G.S. SINGHVI J. -In this appeal, the Revenue has prayed for determination of the following question: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,38,172 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, holding that the pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 4,38,172. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chandigarh, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the order of penalty. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, "the Tribunal"), rejected the asses sees' plea that it had filed the revised return voluntarily but upheld its challenge to the penalty on the ground that while finalising the assessment, the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Shri Sawhney argued that failure of the assessee to file a correct return was by itself sufficient for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the Tribunal committed a serious error by setting aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn was submitted. The statement of the partner on pages 14-16 of the paper book, Shri Ramesh Kumar was recorded and in that statement, he did explain the reasons which led to filing of the revised return. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that those reasons were impliedly accepted by the Assessing Officer. Looking at the assessment order, one cannot challenge the above assertion of learned counsel for the assessee. At any rate, the satisfaction about the concealment of income of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to assume jurisdiction to initiate and levy penalty is clearly not recorded as enjoined by law. The above jurisdictional defect in our view cannot be cured. Accordingly, we hold that penalty imposed is not val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
