TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of the case, the ITAT was right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). - Tax Case No. 10 of 1999(R) - - - Dated:- 20-9-2012 - PRAKASH TATIA, AND JAYA ROY, JJ. For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Roshan, Sr. S.C.(I.T) Ms. Rupa Kumari, Adv. For the Respondent: JC to J.K. Pasari By Court This Tax Case No. 10 of 1999(R) has been registered on receipt of reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and following question of law has been referred to this Court: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(C) even though the income disclosed during search was deliberately not declared in the return. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing officer rightly imposed the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961. Whereas the Tribunal has set aside that penalty only on the ground that no further inquiry was conducted by the assessing officer, which according to learned counsel for the respondent was not at all required in view of the admission of the assessee himself as well as in view of the finding of fact that has been recorded in the assessment proceeding. 5. We considered the submission of learned counsel for the Revenue. We are of the considered opinion that purposefully the penalty has not been made automatic in the regular assessment proceedings and, therefore, it has been provided separately under Section 271of the Act wherein it has been provided that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stified in observing that the assessing officer before imposing penalty did not held any independent inquiry and no specific and concrete materials were brought on record by the assessing officer to establish the fact that the assessee had really concealed the amount. Learned Tribunal was also justified in the facts of the case, in observing that no material indicating any specific asset, investment or income to the extent of the said amount were brought on record. 7. In view of above reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error. Therefore, the question is answered that in the facts of the case, the ITAT was right in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
