TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, some of which were adopted by the CIT(A)/Tribunal and some of which were rejected - even in respect of those claims which were rejected by the Tribunal - reference applications were filed by the assessee and were allowed to the Tribunal and they are pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court - the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper - The Tribunal as well as the CIT(A) have taken care the factual aspects of the matter - the paper book shows that there was in fact reply filed and the AO had ample occasion to look at the explanation and the respondent-assessee did not fail to substantiate the claim and the explanation was considered to be bona fide and germane to the facts of the case - therefore, the cancellation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the same, the revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 22.03.2000 dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Hence, this appeal is filed at the instance of the revenue. 3. While admitting this appeal on 27.11.2000, this Court has formulated the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was justified in law and on facts in confirming the order of the CIT(A) who had cancelled the penalty of ₹ 65,00,000/ignoring the clear explanations to Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. 2. Whether when no reply was filed in the penalty proceedings and the Assessing Officer had no occasion but to apply the Explanation to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e before the AO for which provision under Section 271(1)(c) was required to be invoked. As there was neither concealment of income nor any inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee and even otherwise the issues with respect to the addition or disallowances are debatable, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Limited reported in 2010(322) ITR 158(SC), the impugned orders passed by the learned ITAT confirming the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not required to be interfered with. As such we are in complete agreement with the view taken by learned CIT(A) con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich is found by the A.O. or the CIT(A) to be false or (B) Such persons offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bonafide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him. Then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purpose of clause(C) or this subsection, he deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. In respect of the various disallowances and additions made by the A.O. which were challenged in the appeal before the CIT(A) and then before the Tribunal the assessee has given expl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the penalty was properly cancelled. Therefore, we answer the questions No.1 in favour of the assessee. 8. It goes without saying that as we have answered question No.1. in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee the question No.2 will not require further elaborate discussion as paper book shows that the Assessing Officer has not considered explanation and has given erroneous finding of fact which has been corrected by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The paper book shows that there was infact reply filed and the Assessing Officer had ample occasion to look at the explanation and the respondent-assessee did not fail to substantiate the claim and the explanation was considered to be bona fide and germane to the facts of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
