TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, and found that the loss was only ₹ 77,640. Having held that, the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) were initiated. Penalty was levied. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) accepted the claim that no penalty could have been levied in view of the decision of the High Court in CIT vs. Prithipal Singh Co. (1990) 85 CTR (P H) 26 : (1990) 183 ITR 69(P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court in Prithipal Singh's case (supra). Still further, the decision has been affirmed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Prithipal Singh Co. (2001) 166 CTR (SC) 187: (2001) 249 ITR 670(SC). 4. Mr. Sawhney submits that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have not given any reason for affirming the decision. In our opinion that is of no consequence. Once the decision h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
