9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see for not offering the notional rental income of such properties was a plausible explanation. The Tribunal, therefore, did not confirm the decision of the Assessing Officer to impose penalty. We are broadly in agreement with the view of the Tribunal. The Tribunal having examined the facts on record, has come to factual conclusions. No question of law in this respect therefore, arises. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hange of head could not result levy in penalty. But, in her opinion, by not following the FIFO method the assessee had made himself liable for levying concealment proceedings. We are of the opion that following FIFO or LIFO method cannot be the basis for levying penalty as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to justify the levy of penalty, two factors must coexist, (i) there must be some material or circumstances leading to the reasonable conclusion that the amount does represent the assessee's income and the amount in question was disclosed by the assessee in his return. Explanation filed by the assessee about the disputed amount plays a vital role in deciding the justification of levying concealment penalty. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the order of the FAA, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. We uphold her order to that extent. As far as dividend stripping is concerned, we find that the Tribunal in the case of has dealt the identical issue and has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Walter Saldanah (supra). We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the order and same reads as under: "On perusal of the orders of Revenue authorities, it is found that the penalty under s.271(1)(c) was levied on the ground that the assessee violated of provisions of s.94(7) by not ignoring losses while computing shortterm capital gains on transactions related to s.94(7). It is important to state here that the AO made the addition only on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in absence of any concealment of particulars of income, penalty cannot be attached. Likewise, the second issue was with respect to taxing the assessee's house properties which the assessee had not offered to tax. Here also the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the explanation offered by the assessee for not offering the notional rental income of such properties was a plausible explanation. The Tribunal, therefore, did not confirm the decision of the Assessing Officer to impose penalty. 6. We are broadly in agreement with the view of the Tribunal. The Tribunal having examined the facts on record, has come to factual conclusions. No question of law in this respect therefore, arises. 7. The third element of penalty was the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
