9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing survives in favour of the revenue for levy of the penalty. AO could have initiated the fresh penalty proceedings after receipt of the order of the Tribunal, but Assessing Officer did not do so. No review of the order is permitted under the I.T. Act by the Assessing Officer. The additions now made by the Assessing Officer in the order dated 6.01.2006 are not part of the show cause notice and no fresh notice is issued for initiating the penalty proceedings against the assessee. The result would be that the Assessing Officer dropped the proceedings for penalty on 30.03.2005 and thereafter, did not initiate the penalty proceedings. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee and again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % to 1.8% of the total receipts and deleted the addition of Rs.1,42,85,226/under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 2.2 Both the department and revenue went in the appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT (A) and the Tribunal set aside the issues pertaining to rejection of books of account and application of new profit rate to AO for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance on loss on collapse of steel pile was confirmed by the Tribunal. 2.3 The AO passed an order on 06/01/2006 giving effect to the direction of the Tribunal determining the total income at Rs.18,24,34,770/wherein those expenses which were not allowable as per the provisions of the law were disallowed instead of apply the net profit rate and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and not the entire order. He has also contended that the penalty proceedings initiated in the assessment order, which are separate proceedings than the assessment proceedings. Lastly, he contended that the order of cancelling the penalty is not just and proper and requires to be confirmed. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Mr.Soparkar has contended that since the main issues arising out of the order passed by the Tribunal which came to be challenged before this Court by the Department have been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department, present Tax Appeal raising the question of levying penalty on the assessee would not survive and answer may be given in favour of the assessee. 6. Having heard the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also be discernable from such proceedings. However in this case, there is nothing in the order dated 6.01.2006. The Assessing Officer could have initiated the fresh penalty proceedings after receipt of the order of the Tribunal, but Assessing Officer did not do so. No review of the order is permitted under the I.T. Act by the Assessing Officer. The additions now made by the Assessing Officer in the order dated 6.01.2006 are not part of the show cause notice and no fresh notice is issued for initiating the penalty proceedings against the assessee. The result would be that the Assessing Officer dropped the proceedings for penalty on 30.03.2005 and thereafter, did not initiate the penalty proceedings. Therefore, Learned Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
