9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred this appeal proposing following questions of law for our consideration:- "(i) Whether in the circumstances and the facts of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act even though correct facts were not disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee?" (ii) Whether in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Assessing Officer. 4. As can be noted from the record, the assessee respondent in return of income, declared his total income at Rs.13,35,470/- for the assessment year 2005-06. Assessing Officer made certain additions and disallowances in scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and eventually initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was no material to indicate any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Therefore, it deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. When challenged before the Tribunal, it concurred with the findings of CIT (Appeals) and upheld such findings and held thus:- "8. Having heard both sides, we have carefully gone through the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal as is apparent from the record. The assessee respondent, in its return of income, had disclosed all details and material particulars, which it was expected to do so under the law. It is a different aspect that Assessing Officer made certain additions in the scrutiny assessment. However later on, CIT (Appeals) had treated it differently by allowing and deleting certain additions. That itse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
