9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiated proceeding for levy of penalty and passed an order of penalty. Levy of penalty was deleted by the CIT(A), which view has been upheld by the Tribunal – held that - even if there is loss, penalty could be levied for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This legal position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the assessee - the view taken by the Tribunal has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1995-96, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Prithipal Singh & Co. 183 ITR 69, as also affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case [2001] 249 ITR 670 wherein the assessment year involved was 1970-71, when section 271(1)(c) has undergone substantive amendments since 1.4.1976, wherein penalty leviable has been linked to "tax sough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is loss, penalty could be levied for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This legal position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the assessee. 4. In view of later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gold Coin Health Food, supra, the view taken by the Tribunal has to be reversed. The substantial question of law has to be answered in favour of the revenue an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
