9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact, in deleting the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act?" 2. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the Revenue and Shri Vijay Asudani, learned counsel for the assessee. 3. The dispute in this appeal essentially relates to imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the asst. yr. 1993-94. The AO imposed the penalty by taking recourse to the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) ibid on the assessee during the assessment year in question. However, the CIT(A) and later Tribunal set it aside by holding that no case for penalty is made out on facts and that explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings are independent of each other and the imposition of the penalty does not automatically follow as a matter of course if an addition has been made to the quantum side. Reference may be made to the decision in CIT vs. Ganga Cold Storage 125 Taxation 45 (All). Perusal of the assessment order would reveal that the assessee had claimed expenses under various heads, like sales promotion, lease rent, bad debts, entertainment expenses, etc. The AO was of the view that the expenses claimed by the assessee were on the higher side. During the course of assessment proceedings vide letter dt. 2nd Jan., 1994 it was stated by the assessee that though all the expenses and purchases, etc. are genuine, fully vouched and are fully allowable but in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce brought on record by the Revenue that the amount offered was concealed income of the assessee, the penalty for concealment is not exigible at all. The Tribunal has also observed that the principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. has been applied by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the decision in Girdharilal Soni vs. CIT (1990) 82 CTR (Cal) 73 : (1989) 179 ITR 111 (Cal). For the reasons aforesaid and the detailed reasons recorded by the CIT(A), we hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned penalty is not justified and the CIT(A) has rightly cancelled it." 6. It was then the impugned finding was recorded in favour of assessee holding that no mens rea as cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
