2019 (9) TMI 355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espondent : Mr.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan COMMON JUDGMENT T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue and Mr.Venkata Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Secti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that when the assessee was found to have been maintaining two sets of accounts, he could disown one set of accounts without any obligation to explain the discrepancies within the two sets of accounts and thereby holding that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs. 1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in the respective cases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in the respective c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X