TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IMANI J.- The Revenue has preferred this revision against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai dated October 25, 1999 made in T.A. No. 169 of 1998, in respect of assessment year 1993-94, and the same was admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether the order of the Tribunal deleting the penalty in entirety levied under section 12(3)(b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It was further pointed out that the dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the assessing officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iture, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted by the assessing officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
