TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that under similar circumstances no penalty was levied in the case of a sister concern?" - reading of the order of the Tribunal clearly shows that respondent-assessee agreed for the addition and then had withdrawn the appeal to buy peace of mind and to avoid litigation on a clear understanding given by the Revenue that no penalty would be levied -The said finding is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of a sister concern?" In the proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, a penalty of Rs. 19,320 was levied. The Commissioner of Income-tax confirmed the penalty. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that out of the total addition of Rs. 29,267, penalty was rightly imposed on Rs. 24,267 but the addition of the balance of Rs. 5,000 did not merit imposition of any penalty. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reliance on a decision of the apex court in Kerala Liquor Corporation v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 11, wherein the apex court held that on setting aside the penalty on the ground that the same income was assessed as income of another firm, the question whether the Tribunal could do so in view or the statutory presumptions rests on question of law. On the other hand, Mr. Kothari has placed reliance on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unjab and Haryana High Court reported in CIT v. Jaswant Rai [1997] 142 CTR 49 is more close to the facts of the instant case. A reading of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal particularly paras. Nos. 20 and 22 clearly shows that the respondent-assessee agreed for the addition and then had withdrawn the appeal to buy peace of mind and to avoid litigation on a clear understanding given by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
