TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that levy of penalty was without jurisdiction – Tribunal has reversed the order of CIT(A) on the basis of precedent judgement - The substantial question of law is answered against the assessee - 1 o f 2007 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2010 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,JJ. Applicent Represented by:Ms. Radhika Suri Respondent Represented by:Ms. Savita Saxena A DARSH KUMAR GOEL, J This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in sustaining the penalty of Rs.7,23,623/- under Section 271(1)(c), even though the assessing officer had not recorded any satisfaction about concealment of income in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty under section 271 (1)(c), is duly inferred. However, following the ratio of decision of jurisdictional Punjab Haryana High Court reported at 263 ITR 484 (P H) which is binding in nature, I cancel the penalty." The Tribunal , reversed the view of the CIT(A). It was observed:- "......Now, the question arises whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has concealed any income. If all the orders up to the Tribunal are analysed, the concealed income even by the Tribunal has been mentioned at Rs.30,81,972/- with its clear finding, it can be said that undisputedly the assessee concealed the particulars of income at least to this extent." ".....In this case, the Assessing Officer mentioned at theend of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The additions were duly sustained upto the Tribunal which became final. The basis of additions was particulars of income which were concealed by the assessee but came to light during search. In these circumstances, satisfaction of the assessing officer that the assessee concealed particulars f assessable income was patent as is clear from the observations in the order of assessment. Thus, judgment in Harigopal has no application. At the end of the assessment order it was mentioned that penalty proceedings have been initiated separately. In Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Pearey Lal and sons (EP) Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 438 (P H) the matter was considered by this Court. After referring to Manish Iron's case (supra) and otherjudgments and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
