9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mesh Kumar For Respondent : Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan Senior Standing Counsel O R D E R The petitioner challenges order dated 03.03.2016, passed in terms of Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'), rejecting the application for compounding filed by the petitioner seeking compounding of offence in respect of assessment year (AY) 1995-96. 2. The petitioner had original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action in question. 3. While completing the assessment, proceedings for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The petitioner contended that it was not aware of the forged documents and had proceeded on the basis that the transaction was a genuine one. This stand was rejected by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this amounted to a substantial fraud upon the Department since the false claim for depreciation on non-existing assets was made consciously. 6. These concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities was confirmed further by a Division Bench of this Court in Tax Case (Appeal) No.124 of 2007 by order dated 20.02.2007 dismissing the petitioners' appeal. This order has attained finality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to its letter dated 26.03.2014 seeking a clarification from the respondent in respect of anticipated prosecution proceedings for the AY 1996-97. I do not find any relevance to this reference by the petitioner. 10. In the light of the categoric findings of fact by the authorities at all levels, there absolutely no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
