9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adra J.) Present Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961 has been preferred by the assessee against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in I.T.A. No.437/Luc/2008 for the assessment year 2001-02. On 08.07.2009, a coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial question of law : "Whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vy the penalty of Rs.9,75,500/- under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The penalty order was confirmed not only by the first appellate authority but also by the Tribunal by passing the impugned order. Still not being satisfied, the assessee has filed the present appeal. With this background, Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the additions were reflected in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty proceedings is an independent proceedings. So, he made a request that the penalty may kindly be cancelled. On the other hand, Sri D. D. Chopra, learned counsel for the department, at the strength of the written note, submits that the case of the assessee is fully covered under section 271 (1)(c) explanation 1(B) of the Act. He submits that during the assessment year under considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e shown by the assessee was bogus that is why, the same were confirmed not only by the first appellate authority but also by the Tribunal. Needless to mention that the Tribunal is a final fact finding authority as per the ratio laid down in the following cases : 1. Kamal Ganpati vs. Collector of Estate Duty; 253 ITR 692 SC ; 2. Anjani Coal Agency vs. CIT; 2005 (37) STJ 294 Alld.; and 3. CIT vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alment" was detected only during the scrutiny. The assessee has given the false statement. On false estimate/statement, the penalty is justifiable as per the ratio laid down in the following cases : 1. Londu Lal R. P. vs. CIT; 297 ITR 37 Alld ; and 2. Shyam Biri Works Pvt. Limited vs. CIT; 295 ITR 625 Alld. The Tribunal has also discussed a number of case laws and the same need not be repeated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
