TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income, because assessee had duly disclosed the same in the audit statements filed before AO - disclosed writing off of investments in audit statements for both the A.Y.s so, penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is not justified - T.C.A. NO 637 and 638 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2007 - P. D. DINAKARAN and P. P. S. JANARTHANA RAJA JJ. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1 P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for both the assessment years. 3 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who, by orders dated February 3, 2003, deleted the penalty holding that the assessee had duly disclosed the material facts and particulars of income in the audit statements filed before the Assessing Officer and has not concealed any incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voke the provisions of section 271(1) (c), ignoring the Explanation I to section 271 ?" 5 Heard Mr. J. Narayanasamy, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. 6 It is not in dispute that the assessee acquired shares and that there was a diminution in the value of shares acquired by the assessee. It is also not disputed that the-assessee has debited the equal amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the assessee had disclosed the writing off of the investments in the audit statements for both the assessment years and hence, levy of penalty under section 2 71(1) (c) is not warranted. 7 This court, in CIT v. P. Natarajan [2004] 266 ITR 219, while observing that the power to levy penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is discretionary and that discretion vested in the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the audit statements furnished before the Assessing Hence, following the earlier decision of this court in CIT v. P. Natarajan [2004] 266 1TR 219 as well as in view of the recent decision of the apex court in CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278, where under it is held that whenever there is a concurrent factual finding by the authorities below, the same should be accepted and no interferen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
