9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Year 197980 on 31.07.1979 and declared total income of Rs. 4,48,56,040/. This income was finally revised to Rs. 4,46,55,550/by the third revised return filed on 25.11.1982. During the course of assessment proceedings, a draft assessment order was prepared by the Assessing Officer, proposing to tax the assessee at an amount of Rs. 8,28,18,482/and inter alia proposed an addition of Rs. 3,81,62,932/The IAC, however, approved additions of Rs. 1,65,67,670/only and did not approve additions to the extent of Rs. 2,1555,362/. After receipt of instructions from the IAC, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment 2.1. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) allowed the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which is reiterated before us also. Reliance is also placed on the latest order dated 17.06.2014 in Tax Appeal No.361 of 2014, wherein paragraph No.4 is material and is reproduced for ready reference: 4.0. Having heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate for the Revenue and Shri R.K. Patel, learned advocate for the assessee and considering the fact that apart from the fact that on the issues, which were held against the assessee by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has succeeded upto Tribunal, against which the Tax Appeals are admitted, we are of the opinion that the issues were/ are debatable issue. Hence, we are of the opinion that both the authorities below have rightly he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er:" 11. we have considered the rival submission and have also gone through the order passed by the A.O. as well as the CIT(A) and have also gone through the case laws cited by the Revenue as well as by the learned Authorized Representative of the assessee. The assessment year involved in 197980 and the levy of penalty is to be governed by the provisions of Explanation to Section 271(1) (C), which was applicable from 1.4.1978 and not with reference to Explanation which was in subsection for the periods from 1.4.1964 to 31.3.1976. Explanation to Section 271(1) (C) which was in operation w.e.f. 1.4.1976 reads as under: &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hd/1980. Similarly, with regard to foreign tour expenses of Mrs. Kamlini Garabhai amounting to Rs. 34 lacs, the claim of the assessee was that the Director Shir Gautam Garabhai was 61 years of age and was not keeping good health and Ms. Kamlibai Garabhai accompanied with him during the tour after getting approval of R.S.I but the claim was rejected by the Tribunal although similar claim as allowed by the Tribunal in the case of Shahibaug Entrepreneur Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.220/Ahd/1977-78 vide order dated 31.10.1979 relating in A.Y. 1972-73. 7. Having gone through the details as enumerated in paragraph No.11 we found that the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal as well as the CIT(A) have taken care the factual aspects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
