9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the first appellate authority the loss claimed by the assessee to be allowed. However, the Tribunal reversed the order (sic.) order passed by the Assessing Officer was upheld. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee was required to furnish statement of advance tax payable by it. However, the assessee had failed to furnish the statement and to pay the advance tax. Hence, the penalty under section 273(1)(b) of Rs. 15,000 was levied. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee company had concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 83,941 was levied. The assessee moved before the first appellate authority and the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24 ITR 653 [1980] (Punj. & Har.) 2.Eagle International Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 57 ITD 512 (Cal.) 3.M/s. Bigoo Investments Ltd. (ITA No. 246/Cal/86) 4.Nihal Projects Ltd. (ITA No. 246/Cal./89) 5.Vinal Investments Ltd. (ITA Nos. 3541, 3582 & 3583/Cal./88) 6.M/s. Capable Udyog Viniyojan (ITA 10/Cal./87) 7.ITO v. M/s. G. Kothari & Co. (ITA Nos. 3165 & 3166/Cal./87) The decisions which were relied upon by the CIT(Appeals) are distinguishable on facts. 5. On the other hand, the learned D.R. supported the orders passed by the authorities below and submitted that in quantum appeal, the Tribunal has confirmed the addition. Therefore, the orders of penalty should be upheld. 6. I have heard both the sides and perused the materials on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee was engaged in share dealings and all the documents in relation to the share dealings were filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer to his satisfaction. Hence, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income can be levied. The assessee has brought on record various decisions of different High Courts in support of the fact that merely because the addition was made, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied automatically. This principle of law is now settled beyond any doubt that for each and every addition, penalty cannot be levied. 6.1 So far as penalty under section 273(1)(b) of the Act is concerned, it appears that the assessee had suffered loss in share transaction which according to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
