9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Garg, J .- 1. The assessment under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act was completed against the assessee vide order dated 23.1.2004 passed by the Assessing Officer. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee has received interest on FDRs at Rs.1,28,232/- which was not included in the original return filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer and accordingly, penalty of Rs.82,436/-imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271 (1)(c ) of the Act was directed to be deleted. 2. Aggrieved against the said order, the revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I', New Delhi. The Tribunal found that penalty was not imposable as there was no conscious breach of law. While dismissing the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(C) of the Act, by applying the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, in the case of CIT v. Munish Iron Store, 263 ITR 484, as in that case revised return was filed voluntarily, by the assessee, whereas in the instant case, the respondent assessee filed return in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act and the case is covered by explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c ) of the Act att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax (Appeals). The Tribunal has also found that penalty is not imposable if there is no conscious breach of law. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue. From the findings recorded by the Tribunal wherein it has been held that no penalty is imposable if there is no conscious breach of law, the question of law as ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
