TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing inaccurate particulars or concealment of material particulars, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty. - 1064 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2011 - MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI, MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI, JJ. MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) ORAL ORDER (Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. The appellant-Revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act [the Act] has challenged the order dated 30th November 2007 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [the Tribunal], proposing the following question in relation to assessment year 2003-04: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty, in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty of Rs.20,66,673/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal. The assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal and succeeded. 4. Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Revenue assailed the impugned order of the Tribunal. Attention was invited to the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) to submit that the Commissioner (Appeals) had considered each default in detail and found that the Assessing Officer has validly considered the claim made by the assessee as amounting to furnishing of incorrect income. It was, accordingly urged that in the face of the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal has placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT, 291 ITR 519 (SC). 6. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) have stated as to what are the inaccurate particulars that have been furnished by the assessee or as to what is the nature of the concealment made by the assessee. The Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence on record has found as a matter of fact that all primary and material facts were disclosed by the assessee and was of the view that the assessee had made a bonafide claim and that holding a different legal opinion cannot lead to penalty in respect of the items claimed. The aforesaid view taken by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
