TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent-assessee does not satisfy Section 271AAA(2) of the Act so as to be excluded from the provisions of Section 271AAA(1) of the Act. Nothing has been shown to us as to why the impugned order of the Tribunal is perverse. The view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view on the facts as found. - No substantial questions of law - Decided against revenue - Income Tax Appeal No. 6 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. Mr. Ashok Kotangale with Ms. Padma Divakar, for the Appellant Mr. Nishant Thakkar i/b. PDS Legal, for the Respondent ORDER P. C. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 22nd March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isfy the manner in which income of ₹ 6.03 Crores was earned. 5 Being aggrieved, the respondent-assesee carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated 28th April, 2011, the CIT(A) partly allowed the respondent-assesee's appeal. It finds that the respondent-assessee had fully explained the manner in which the income was earned by its letter dated 14th September, 2007 addressed to DDIT(Investigation) and also a part of the record before the Assessing Officer. It also placed reliance upon the order sheet entry dated 8th December, 2009, stating that the heads of income had been correctly stated in the statement under Section 132(4) of the Act except that the disclosure on account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfying Section 271AAA(2) of the Act. 8 We find that both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have rendered a finding of fact that an amount of ₹ 13 lakhs (Rupees thirteen lakhs) and ₹ 23,276/( Rupees Twenty three thousand two hundred seventy six only) alone have not been explained so as to satisfy Section 271AAA(2) of the Act save the above both have held that the other portions of statement made under Section 132(4) stated satisfied. In fact, the Assessing Officer while imposing the penalty has not given any reasons in support of his conclusion that the respondent-assessee does not satisfy Section 271AAA(2) of the Act so as to be excluded from the provisions of Section 271AAA(1) of the Act. Nothing has been shown to us a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
