9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a reference at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal cancelling penalty levied on the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the asst. yr. 1990-91. The respondent is an advocate and power of attorney holder of the assessee by name M.K. Ali. A search was conducted in the assessee's premises on 14th Feb., 1990 and during search cash for ₹ 5,75,000 was seize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct to the minimum amount. Even though assessee filed appeal against penalty order, the same was rejected by the first appellate authority, namely, CIT(A). However, on second appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty on the assumption that prior to the due date for filing of return, the assessee returned the income and paid tax thereon. It is against this order of the Tribunal canc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee proceeded to contend that the amount belonged to another person, but failed to prove the same. Even though counsel for the assessee relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Jt CIT [2007] 210 CTR (SC) 228 : [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) and T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT [2007] 210 CTR (SC) 259 : [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC), we notice that facts in these two decisions are different and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Expln. 5 to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and consequently the assessee is liable for penalty under the said section. Therefore the order of the Tribunal to the contrary is liable to be reversed. So far as the quantum of penalty is concerned, the officer has levied only minimum penalty and therefore there is no scope for interference with the quantum of penalty levied. In the circumstances we disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
