9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber after considering the submissions of the parties before him, decided the afore-referred question agreeing with the view expressed by the ld. JM, i.e., that the penalty order imposing a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in the manner afore-stated, is not sustainable in law. Reference for the purpose may be made to the discussion at paras 15 to 27 of his order (copy on record), which was also read out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als by two Assessees for two consecutive years, i.e., assessment years (AYs.) 2008-09 and 2009-10. The same raising common issues, were taken up for hearing by the Tribunal together, i.e., on 26/8/2015. However, a difference of opinion on the sustainability of the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter), in the given fact and circumstances of the case, ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is with regard to alleged concealment of income by the assessee, whereas the imposition of the penalty is for concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income , the levy of penalty is not sustainable? 2. The ld. third member has in terms of sec. 255(4) since rendered his opinion vide his order dated May 07, 2018, retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , no objection thereto was fairly raised by the ld. CITDR during hearing. We accordingly hold that the penalty imposed in the manner afore-said is not sustainable in law. The impugned penalty is accordingly directed to be cancelled, allowing the assessee s Gd. 1.1. 3. The other legal grounds were not pressed during hearing before the regular bench. Qua the grounds on the merits of the penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
