TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch are derived from the Tribunal's order, do not raise any substantial questions of law, particularly, in the light of the argument of the Revenue's counsel as noted in paragraph 4 of the impugned order. Thus, whether the facts and circumstances justify deletion of penalty as prayed, or that the ingredients enabling imposition of penalty under that particular statutory provision are satisfied or not, was the real issue involved. That is evidently a mixed issue. We do not see, in light of the factual findings rendered by the Tribunal, that any substantial question of law arises for determination and consideration in these Appeals. We must see that the approach of the Tribunal in deleting penalty. On the date of that exercise undertaken, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . That ground raised by the assessee pertains to levying of penalty. The argument was that the Assessing Officer should not have levied penalty on the basis of income tax including surcharge. However, when the argument commenced before the Tribunal, it is evident that the quantum matters were decided by the Tribunal on 17th April 2013 in three Income Tax Appeals, details of which are provided by the assessee's representative. The concealment penalty was therefore, the issue which was raised. The details of this concealment penalty are stated in paragraph 3 of the impugned order and from paragraph 3.1, the Tribunal refers to the order passed by it for the assessment year 2001-2002. Thus, one of the issues on merits, in relation to which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e treated as genuine. The outcome of which will be the deletion of these additions. However, keeping in mind the apprehension of the revenue, we consider it just and proper to direct the AO to levy penalty on these additions only to the extent they survive after giving effect to the aforementioned order of the Tribunal dated 17/04/2013, the relevant portions of the order of Tribunal have already been reproduced above. 6. So far as it relates to addition with respect to interest in respect of A.Y. 2002-2003, the quantum has been deleted by the Tribunal, therefore, no concealment penalty can be survived. The penalty is deleted to that extent. 7. Mr. Pinto would, therefore, argue that the questions other than of penalty, do survive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue's counsel as noted in paragraph 4 of the impugned order. Thus, whether the facts and circumstances justify deletion of penalty as prayed, or that the ingredients enabling imposition of penalty under that particular statutory provision are satisfied or not, was the real issue involved. That is evidently a mixed issue. We do not see, in light of the factual findings rendered by the Tribunal, that any substantial question of law arises for determination and consideration in these Appeals. It is too far fetched an argument and to be canvassed at this stage that in the event the Revenue succeeds in its challenge to the orders passed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, even the present Appeals would not be allowed, meaning thereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
