9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicate the leviability of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on merits of the penalty provisions as are contained u/s. 271(1)(c) . Provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are to be read with Explanations . If the assessee comes with an explanation in penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) , which explanations are genuine and bonafide as provided under Explanation1 to Section 271(1)(c) the assessee will be out of clutches of penalty provisions as are contained in Section 271(1)(c). The explanations which are offered before the tribunal by assessee as detailed in order dated 09.04.2018 needed verification by the AO as it is a factual matter and thus, tribunal was pleased to set aside the matter to the file of AO for re-adjudication on merits in accordance w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d tower at terrace. The issue so far as license fee of ₹ 1,00,000/- per annum received by the assessee from Tata Teleservices Maharashtra Limited is considered has reached finality as learned CIT(A) while adjudicating quantum assessment accepted the claim of the assessee. The dispute is w.r.t. service charges of ₹ 1,50,000/- received by assessee from Tata Teleservices Maharashtra Ltd. for providing various services such as lift, security guard etc. . The assessee has credited said income of ₹ 1,50,000/- to Income Expenditure Account and debited expenses incurred in relation to the earning of the said income to Income Expenditure account . The AO has brought the said income to tax at gross level of ₹ 1,50,000/- un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The grievance of the Revenue is that the matter was restored back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law . It is claimed by Ld. DR that this is a penalty appeal u/s. 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act and in quantum assessment , the issue has already been decided against the assessee on merits by the AO which was later confirmed by learned CIT(A) and , thus, it attained finality . Thus, it is contended by learned DR that there is now no question of going back and adjudicating the additions on merits as it attained finality. The Ld. Counsel for assessee who is Secretary of the aforesaid co-operative society submitted that there is no mistake apparent on record which can be rectified under this mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent proceedings than the quantum assessment proceedings and merely because additions in quantum are sustained by appellate authorities, leviability of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act is not automatic. The tribunal while setting aside back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication has directed AO to re-adjudicate the leviability of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on merits of the penalty provisions as are contained u/s. 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act . Provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act are to be read with Explanations . If the assessee comes with an explanation in penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) , which explanations are genuine and bonafide as provided under Explanation1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act , the assessee will be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
