9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal on re-appreciation of the factual position, deleted the levy of penalty. Thus, the entire issue revolves around the factual position and we find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Apart from that, we note that the quantum of penalty, which was levied by the Department, is lesser than the threshold limit prescribed in the Circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes prescribing the limits of the Revenue to pursue the appeals, which are pending before this Court. - Tax Case (Appeal) No. 917 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2018 - T. S. Sivagnanam And V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel : assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, Senior Standing Counsel : M/s.K.G.Ush ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... candidly admitted the payment of money towards the purchase of the property, which was not disclosed and this is sufficient to hold that the assessee is liable for payment of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 6.We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in paragraph 14, took note of the statement of the assessee, which is to the following effect:- Do you want to say anything ? , the honest assessee stated that he had admitted ₹ 1 Crore approximately in the purchase of immovable property and this was not accounted and he admitted to pay the tax with a further request that in view of the above surrender, he may be relieved of the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8.On a perusal of the above decision of the Tribunal, it is evidently clear that the Tribunal reiterated the factual position before it came to the conclusion about the conduct of the assessee and that he is entitled for immunity available under Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on two counts - firstly, the immovable property is not an article or thing so as to apply Explanation 5 and secondly, even if Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable, the assessee has given at best information regarding the source and particularly, no question was asked by the Department. 9.Thus, we find that the Tribunal on reappreciation of the factual position, deleted the levy of penalty. Thus, the entire issue revolves a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
