TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the assessment year 1995-96. The assessee is seeking admission of this appeal on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the filing of the revised return before issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act, cannot be treated as a voluntary act, that the appellant is guilty of concealing income and is liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? 2. It is seen that the first assessment was completed originally on 1.9.1999 under Section 147 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they stated that there were no records to reveal the dishonesty of the party. The assessee computed the taxable income and paid tax thereon; however, did not quantify the interest payable under Section 234A, 234B and 234C, nor paid the said interest of the self-assessment tax payable. On further analysis of the facts, the Revenue completed the assessment and held that the assessee had full knowledge of the transaction as not a genuine one and that the sham transaction was mutually beneficial; that the assessee had full knowledge about the transaction and hence, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. The assessee resisted the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of tax, interest and penalty coupled with threat of prosecution under the Income Tax Act, but yet had not taken any action against BSAL and not even an attempt had been made. The assessee was a major beneficiary and it was a party to the bogus transaction. The investigation conducted by the Revenue clearly proved the bogus transaction. In the above circumstances, the appellate authority rejected the plea of the assessee that they are unaware of the bogus transaction. 7. Going by the law laid down by this Court and the Supreme Court reported in K.P.MADHUSUDAN Vs. CIT , [2001] 251 ITR 99 the appellate authority held that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Thus, it confirmed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal erred in its finding that the appellant was not able to disprove the allegation of fraud on its part. He submitted that it was a victim of the dishonest attitude of the lessee and hence had gone for withdrawal of the claim for depreciation on its own accord; consequently, the assessee could not be attributed motive that it had knowledge on the definite character of the transaction. He also submitted that there was no material before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee made a false claim knowingly. In the circumstances, he prayed for reversing the order. 11. We do not find any basis to accept this plea of the assessee herein. As a final fact finding authority, the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
