2007 (1) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e in I. T. A. No. 1673/Mds/2002 for the assessment year 1996-97. The Revenue is the appellant. The issue raised in this appeal relates to the assessment year 1996-97. The assessee-company filed its return of income disclosing a loss of Rs. 3.59 crores. On completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer reduced the loss to Rs. 87.93 lakhs and treated the reduction of loss being difference ari .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd that the total assessed income of the assessee was only a loss?" Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the appellant fairly concedes that the issue raised in this appeal are already decided by this court in CIT v. A. Hariraman [2006] 282 ITR 607. It is trite law that the loss cannot be taken into account in computing penalty. Similarly, the amount representing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n addition to the tax payable. A plain reading of clauses (ii) and (iii) in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, particularly in the context of the words 'in addition to tax, if any payable to him' employed in sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) would make it clear that the penalty contemplated in all the above clauses is a measure of tax payable by the assessee. In other words, if no tax is payable by the assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X