TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion as to the unavailability of material to substantiate the revision which according to it was on account of over statement of net income. Ordinarily, the assessee’s upon receipt of scrutiny of the revised revision, the returns upwards in which case the revenue could be justified in assuming that an attempt to conceal the material fact was made. In the present case, the inability of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Deepa Sharma, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate along with Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Advocate along with Mr. Shekhar Garg, Advocate ORDER The issue urged as a question of law by the revenue in its appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is Whether in the circumstance of the case, the respondent/assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not be justified much less satisfactorily by the assessee and under the circumstances not only the addition but even the imposition of penalty was warranted. Emphasising that the findings of the AO were concurred with and affirmed by the CIT(A), the revenue argues that the ITAT should not have disturbed those findings which were factual. This court notices that the circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the sides. The CIT(A) while confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, has over looked the facts that the assessee has filed revised return when the assessee company itself came to the knowledge that there was an error in its return for A.Y. 2003-04. The fact that company has at no stage hidden or intentionally acted which shows that they have deliberately filed the inaccurate, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
