9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... runakaran, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer has not indicated in the show cause notice whether he is levying penalty for concealing any particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Original Kerala Jewellers in T.C.A. No.717 of 2018 dated 18.12.2018, the Ld.counsel submitted that on identical circumstance, the Madras High Court by placing reliance on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565, found that there cannot be any levy of penalty. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in confirming the penalty levied by the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said to be made to certain institutions at Kolkata. The approval granted by the competent authority appears to have been withdrawn. The assessee claimed exemption before the Assessing Officer much before withdrawal of approval by competent authority. The assessee has filed revised return withdrawing the claim of exemption. The fact remains that the Assessing Officer has also issued notice under Section 148 of the Act to regularize the return filed by the assessee withdrawing the exemption claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that it is obvious that when the approval of competent authority was in existence, the assessee claimed exemption. When the approval was withdrawn, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the High Court found that the assessee, being a company, was precluded from raising such plea at the belated stage before the High Court. In other words, before the Tribunal, the assessee in Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) had not raised this issue. This Tribunal being the first appellate authority, the assessee in the present appeal has raised this issue, therefore, this Tribunal is expected to adjudicate the same. This Tribunal being the second appellate authority cannot ignore the fact that the Assessing Officer failed to struck down the relevant plea indicating whether he initiated penalty proceeding for concealing any part of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In view of the above, by respectfully following the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
