9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1984-85 having remitted the issue relating to the disallowance of the assessee's claim under section 35(1)(iv) for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer which led to imposition of the impugned penalty ?" - Though we answer the question of law as reframed by us in the affirmative, technically still the question whether pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the subject matter of consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the claim for deduction made by the assessee under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The Assessing Officer found that the claim for deduction made by the assessee was false and on that basis, he levied penalty. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew, should have stopped with that observation, but it proceeded further and observed that the claim for deduction made by the assessee was only a legal contention and therefore the claim could not be regarded as a false claim. We are of the view, the Appellate Tribunal should not have entered into the merits of the matter and given a finding on the question whether the claim for deduction made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim for deduction, and not earlier. Therefore, we uphold the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that since the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer, the penalty imposed cannot be sustained. However, we are not approving the observation made by the Appellate Tribunal that the assessee's claim is not a false claim. Since the question of law does not bring out the real issue, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
