TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15-10-2009 - Member(s) : I. C. SUDHIR., DEEPAK R. SHAH. ORDER-DEEPAK R. SHAH, A.M.: By this miscellaneous application the Revenue desires that the Tribunal may rectify its order in ITA No. 429/Agra/2007, dt. 17th July, 2007. 2. The Tribunal in appeal against order levying penalty under s. 271(1)(c) held that there was no proper satisfaction arrived at as required under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was held that the satisfaction was qua "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" as recorded in the assessment order but in the order levying penalty under s. 271(1)(c), the same was qua "concealment of particulars of income". The Tribunal thereafter held as under: "6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or loss of the assessee. Thus it can be said that the mention by the AO of direction for initiation of proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order would cover both the actions of the assessee i.e., "concealment of particulars of income" as well as "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." 3. The learned Departmental Representative Shri A.R. Khan submitted that as per sub-s. (1B) to s. 271 inserted by Finance Act, 2008 w.r.e.f. 1st April, 1989, a direction contained in assessment order for initiation of penalty proceedings will amount to satisfaction and that will be proper satisfaction. Thus due, to retrospective amendment, the law to be applied is the law as per amended provision of s. 271(1B) inserted with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, even after retrospective amendment, there is no mistake apparent on record. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We are in agreement, with the submission made on behalf of assessee. The Tribunal noted in para 6 of the order as extracted hereinabove that whereas the penalty was initiated on the count of filing inaccurate particulars of income but penalty was levied for concealment of particulars of income. Thus the Tribunal also held that both are different and hence if the satisfaction arrived at during assessment proceedings was for one reason, penalty cannot be levied for another reason. While so holding the Tribunal relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff. Thus the Tribunal had not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
