TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to refer it to this court for its opinion: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who cancelled the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act by the Assessing Officer?" The admitted facts are that the assessments in respect of different years had been completed under section 143(3) of the Act of 1961. Thereafter, the premises of the assessee were raided in July, 1987. The assessments were re opened. Fresh orders of assessment were passed. Penalty proceedings were initiated. In respect of the four years in question, penalties amounting to Rs.2,470, Rs.3,962, Rs.19,830 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd no ground to sustain the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Equally, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no question of law arises for the opinion of this court. The remaining five cases, viz., I.T.C. Nos. 52 to 56 of 1999 relate to the assessment years 1983-84 to 1987-88. In these cases, the Revenue has raised the following question and prays that the Tribunal be directed to refer it to this court for opinion: "Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law, under the facts and circumstances of the case, in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who cancelled the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer, particularly w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee challenging the order of penalty were accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) vide order dated April 1, 1991. In this behalf, the Commissioner had, relied upon the decision in CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC) and Anantharam Veerasinghaiah and Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC). It was observed that "the considerations that arise in penalty proceedings are different from those in assessment proceedings." It was further noticed that most of these expenses are of estimated nature or other such additions which ordinarily would not have attracted penalty under section 271(1)(c). This order was confirmed by the Tribunal. Reliance was also placed on the order passed by it in respect of the assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of the case. Still further, it deserves mention that Mr. Mahajan has referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9. In this case the plea of the assessee that "he had offered additional income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation" was accepted by the High Court and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Similar is the position in the present set of cases. Mr. Sawhney has also drawn our attention to the decision of the apex court in Union of India v. Banwari Lal Agarwal [1999] 238 ITR 461. This case related to the prosecution of the assessee on account of delay in filing the returns. This case has no relevance to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
