2015 (12) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... founded and is against the settled position of law. Ld. Counsel submitted that application deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that various judicial pronouncements were relied, which were not considered by ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this Tribunal had rightly directed to consider the case laws. Further, he submitted that in the issue of limitation order of ld.CIT(A) is ex-facie non speaking. He further submitted that present application is beyond the scope of Section 254 as the Revenue has not pointed out any mistake apparent from the records. By the present application, the Revenue is seeking review of the order which is not permissible under the law. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oncealment was proved and that the decision relied by the assessee is distinguishable on facts. The assessee himself has not stated in the written submission which is reproduced by the CIT(A) as to how the said judgment applied to the facts of the assessee. Thus, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in standing that CTT(A) has not examined the applicability of this case law. 3. In page-9 of para -5 of the order, it has been stated by the stated by the ITAT as follows:- "we also find that before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has raised one of the grounds, ie. Penalty being barred by limitation. This ground has not been decided by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order" Thus contrary to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in page-8 of his order where he has state .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of framing the assessment order. 6 The order passed by ld. AO is without properly appreciating the fact and that he further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order." From the ground no.3, it is evident that the assessee had raised specific grounds with regard to penalty being barred by limitation. While disposing of the appeal, ld. CIT(A) in para 3 stated as under: "3. All grounds in appeal are against levy of penalty of Rs. 20,01,538/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act." This Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2014 while restoring the appeal for f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X