TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this appeal: Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A) cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)((c) amounting to ₹ 11,37,949/levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of the addition, which stood confirmed? The issue raised in the question is dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 5 of it's order, which is repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the assessee to offer an explanation in respect of the amount disallowed in computing the income. The assessee has duly filed the explanation vide letter dated 22.3.2006 giving the reasons which is also apparent from para 6 of the penalty order. Once the assessee has offered an explanation, in our opinion, the onus shifted on the Revenue to prove that the explanation offered by the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n specifically held by the Third Member that a plea or claim which is held by the High Court to give rise a substantial question of law, cannot be treated to be frivolous or malafide as to attract the levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c). We are of the view that the decision of the Third Member is equally applicable to the facts of the present case before us because in this case also it is an admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
